Summary: If you’ve ever heard someone say “Jesus can’t be physically present in the Mass,” this is the episode that flips the script using Scripture (twenty passages), logic, and history.
What if one of the greatest Reformed theologians got the Eucharist completely wrong? In this episode of Catholic Bible Highlights, Catholic author and apologist Dave Armstrong joins Kenny Burchard to take on François Turretin’s objections to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. With over 20 biblical examples of divine presence—spanning from burning bushes to the Incarnation to the Eucharist itself—this episode dismantles the hyper-rationalism of cessationism and reveals the biblical foundation for ongoing miracles and Christ’s sacramental presence. Prepare for a bold, biblical, and Catholic defense of the miraculous in the heart of the Church’s liturgy.
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
Does “Works of the Law” Refer to All Good Works Whatsoever?
Photo credit: N. T. Wright (20 December 2007), by Gareth Saunders [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license]
Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), a Calvinist leader in early Protestantism, or “reformer”, after citing Galatians 2:16, wrote the following in his most significant work, Decades(1551; rep. Cambridge University Press, 1849; first and second decades):
This is now the third time that Paul saith, that men are not justified by the works of the law: in the which clause he comprehendeth all manner of works of what sort soever. (p. 113)
John Calvin, in his Commentaries, draws the same false conclusion about Galatians 2:16:
Let it therefore remain settled, that the proposition is so framed as to admit of no exception, “that we are justified in no other way than by faith,” or, “that we are not justified but by faith,” or, which amounts to the same thing, “that we are justified by faith alone.”
Hence it appears with what silly trifling the Papists of our day dispute with us about the word, as if it had been a word of our contrivance. But Paul was unacquainted with the theology of the Papists, who declare that a man is justified by faith, and yet make a part of justification to consist in works. Of such half-justification Paul knew nothing. For, when he instructs us that we are justified by faith, because we cannot be justified by works, he takes for granted what is true, that we cannot be justified through the righteousness of Christ, unless we are poor and destitute of a righteousness of our own. Consequently, either nothing or all must be ascribed to faith or to works.
And therein lies a fundamental error, repeated by many many Protestants for over 500 years: the interpretation of a particular phrase in Paul relating to Mosaic Law, to supposedly mean all good works; thus leading to a false “faith alone” viewpoint. Recently, I proved the falsity of “faith alone” (sola fide) from a hundred passages in the Bible. But Calvin and Bullinger somehow manage to ignore that much clear teaching of the Bible. The Wikipedia article, “New Perspective on Paul” (“NPP”) provides a good overview:
The “New Perspective” movement began with the publication of the 1977 essay Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E. P. Sanders, an American New Testament scholar and Christian theologian.
Historically, the old Protestant perspective claims that Paul advocates justification through faith in Jesus Christ over justification through works of the Mosaic Law. During the Protestant Reformation, this theological principle became known as sola fide (“faith alone”); this was traditionally understood as Paul arguing that good works performed by Christians would not factor into their salvation; only their faith in Jesus Christ would save them. In this perspective, Paul dismissed 1st-century Palestinian Judaism as a sterile and legalistic religion.
According to Sanders, Paul’s letters do not address good works but instead question Jewish religious observances such as circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath laws, which were the “boundary markers” that set the Jews apart from other ethno-religious groups in the Levant. Sanders further argues that 1st-century Palestinian Judaism was not a “legalistic community”, nor was it oriented to “salvation by works”. As God’s “chosen people”, they were under his covenant. Contrary to Protestant belief, following the Mosaic Law was not a way of entering the covenant but of staying within it. . . .
The writings of the Apostle Paul contain a substantial amount of criticism regarding the “works of the Law“.
By contrast, “New Perspective” scholars see Paul as talking about “badges of covenant membership” or criticizing Gentile believers who had begun to rely on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship. . . .
The “New Perspective on Paul” has, by and large, been an internal debate among Protestant biblical scholars. Many Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars have responded favorably to the “New Perspective”, seeing a greater commonality with certain strands of their own traditions.
Anglican bishop and Bible scholar N. T. Wright (b. 1948) is the most well-known figure in the NPP movement. He stated in a lecture delivered at the Tenth Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference (August 2003):
In my early days of research, before Sanders had published Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977 and long before Dunn coined the phrase ‘The New Perspective on Paul’, I was puzzled by one exegetical issue in particular, which I here oversimplify for the sake of summary. If I read Paul in the then standard Lutheran way, Galatians made plenty of sense, but I had to fudge (as I could see dozens of writers fudging) the positive statements about the Law in Romans. If I read Paul in the Reformed way . . ., Romans made a lot of sense, but I had to fudge . . . the negative statements about the Law in Galatians. . . . it dawned on me, I think in 1976, that a different solution was possible. In Romans 10.3 Paul, writing about his fellow Jews, declares that they are ignorant of the righteousness of God, and are seeking to establish ‘their own righteousness’. The wider context, not least 9.30–33, deals with the respective positions of Jews and Gentiles within God’s purposes – and with a lot more besides, of course, but not least that. Supposing, I thought, Paul meant ‘seeking to establish their own righteousness’, not in the sense of a moral status based on the performance of Torah and the consequent accumulation of a treasury of merit, but an ethnic status based on the possession of Torah as the sign of automatic covenant membership? I saw at once that this would make excellent sense of Romans 9 and 10, and would enable the positive statements about the Law throughout Romans to be given full weight while making it clear that this kind of use of Torah, as an ethnic talisman, was an abuse. I sat up in bed that night reading through Galatians and saw that at point after point this way of looking at Paul would make much better sense of Galatians, too, than either the standard post-Luther readings or the attempted Reformed ones. . . .
I regard as absolutely basic the need to understand Paul in a way which does justice to all the letters, as well as to the key passages in individual ones) . . . the struggle to think Paul’s thoughts after him [is] a matter of obedience to scripture. . . .
When Jimmy Dunn added his stones to the growing pile I found myself in both agreement and disagreement with him. His proposal about the meaning of ‘works of the law’ in Paul – that they are not the moral works through which one gains merit but the works through which the Jew is defined over against the pagan – I regard as exactly right. It has proved itself again and again in the detailed exegesis; attempts to deny it have in my view failed. . . .
It is blindingly obvious when you read Romans and Galatians . . . that virtually whenever Paul talks about justification he does so in the context of a critique of Judaism and of the coming together of Jew and Gentile in Christ. As an exegete determined to listen to scripture rather than abstract my favourite bits from it I cannot ignore this. The only notice that most mainstream theology has taken of this context is to assume that the Jews were guilty of the kind of works-righteousness of which theologians from Augustine to Calvin and beyond have criticised their opponents; . . . I regard the New Perspective’s challenge to this point as more or less established. . . .
It seems that there has been a massive conspiracy of silence on something which was quite clear for Paul (as indeed for Jesus). Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works. He says this clearly and unambiguously in Romans 14.10–12 and 2 Corinthians 5.10. He affirms it in that terrifying passage about church-builders in 1 Corinthians 3. But the main passage in question is of course Romans 2.1–16. . . .
Here is the first statement about justification in Romans, and lo and behold it affirms justification according to works! The doers of the law, he says, will be justified (2.13). Shock, horror; Paul cannot (so many have thought) have really meant it. So the passage has been treated as a hypothetical position which Paul then undermines by showing that nobody can actually achieve it; or, by Sanders for instance, as a piece of unassimilated Jewish preaching which Paul allows to stand even though it conflicts with other things he says. But all such theories are undermined by exegesis itself, not least by observing the many small but significant threads that stitch Romans 2 into the fabric of the letter as a whole. Paul means what he says. Granted, he redefines what ‘doing the law’ really means; he does this in chapter 8, and again in chapter 10, with a codicil in chapter 13. But he makes the point most compactly in Philippians 1.6: he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion on the day of Christ Jesus. The ‘works’ in accordance with which the Christian will be vindicated on the last day are not the unaided works of the self-help moralist. Nor are they the performance of the ethnically distinctive Jewish boundary-markers (sabbath, food-laws and circumcision). They are the things which show, rather, that one is in Christ; the things which are produced in one’s life as a result of the Spirit’s indwelling and operation. . . .
I am fascinated by the way in which some of those most conscious of their reformation heritage shy away from Paul’s clear statements about future judgment according to works. It is not often enough remarked upon, for instance, that in the Thessalonian letters, and in Philippians, he looks ahead to the coming day of judgment and sees God’s favourable verdict not on the basis of the merits and death of Christ, not because like Lord Hailsham he simply casts himself on the mercy of the judge, but on the basis of his apostolic work. . . . [Paul is] clear that the things he does in the present, by moral and physical effort, will count to his credit on the last day, precisely because they are the effective signs that the Spirit of the living Christ has been at work in him. We are embarrassed about saying this kind of thing; Paul clearly is not. What on earth can have happened to a sola scriptura theology that it should find itself forced to screen out such emphatic, indeed celebratory, statements?
With that background in mind, I’d like to briefly examine the contexts of St. Paul’s use of the phrase, “works of the law.” Here are the eight instances of that phrase or “works of law” in six verses in his epistles:
Romans 3:20 For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. (also, “works” in 3:27 seems to be in the same sense, based on the context of 3:20, 28)
Galatians 2:16 yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.
Galatians 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?
Galatians 3:5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?
Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.”
Do the immediate contexts of these passages suggest that Paul is referring to all works — even good works — , or, on the other hand, works in the sense of Jewish religious observances such as circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath laws, which were the ‘boundary markers’ that set the Jews apart” (as the Wikipedia article put it)? The phrase, “works of the law” — because of the word “law” — would seem to me to suggest on its face the latter position, but as we have seen, most Protestant exegetes through the centuries have not thought so, and have followed Bullinger’s and Calvin’s thinking on the issue.
N. T. Wright thinks they have been greatly mistaken, and Catholics agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. The erroneous man-generated tradition of sola fide has overcome common sense exegesis in this instance. When Paul refers to “the law” all agree that he means by that, the Mosaic Law, given to Moses on Mt. Sinai and codified in the first five books of the Bible (the Torah or Pentateuch). Let’s now examine the contexts of these passages.
Romans 3:20
The “law” is referred to in both the immediate preceding and succeeding verses:
Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it,
Romans 3:28
The context of the next three verses refers to Jews and Gentiles, circumcision, and “the law” and Paul even makes it a point to stress that “we uphold the law.”
Romans 3:29-31 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, [30] since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith. [31] Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
In the next chapter, devoted to Abraham, who lived before the law, Paul still refers to “the law” five times in 4:13-16.
Galatians 2:16
Galatians 2:15 We . . . are Jews by birth . . .
Galatians 2:19-21 For I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God. . . . [21] I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose.
Galatians 3:2, 5, 10
Paul had been discussing “the law” at the end of chapter 2 (2:19-21). Then he proceeds to refer to “the law” twelve more times throughout the chapter, besides 3:2, 5, 10 (3:11-13, 17-19, 21, 23-24).
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
Summary: The New Perspective on Paul — in agreement with Catholics — holds that Pauline “works of the law” are “boundary markers” that set the Jews apart from other religious groups.
Photo credit: Karl August von Hase (1800-1890), in 1890 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Karl August von Hase (1800-1890) was a German Lutheran theologian and church historian, who was a professor of theology at Jena from 1829 to 1883, and the great-grandfather of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He wrote many books; his most influential one being A History of the Christian Church (1834; 12th edition, 1900). I will be critiquing one portion of the first volume of von Hase’s two-volume work (one / two), Handbook to the Controversy with Rome (1862; 7th edition, 1900; English translation by A. W. Streane, London: The Religious Tract Society, 1906). The translator wrote that it “has been fitly called indispensable for a knowledge of the Roman controversy, and a masterpiece of Protestant theology . . . unrefuted and irrefutable” and he himself described it as “a powerful statement of the case against Rome” (v. 1, p. viii). His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
*****
The conception that obedience to the dictates of nature was not becoming for the higher religious life came first from without into later Judaism, and fixed itself in the celibate vow of the Essene. (pp. 174-175)
Jeremiah 16:1-2 The word of the LORD came to me: [2] “You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place.”
Granted, he seems to have been an isolated example (though the prophets Elijah and Elisha may also have been celibate, as no mention is made of wives in their stories), but this shows that consecrated virginity for spiritual purposes was not completely unknown in ancient Judaism; nor did the “conception” of it come “first” some 450 years later.
St. Jerome derives comfort from another source : ‘ Peter washed away the defilement of marriage by means of the blood of martyrdom.’ (p. 176)
No individual Church father speaks for the Church, in terms of authority. Nor do even the mass of fathers. What they do is indicate the presence of holy tradition. But individual ones can be, and too often were, wrong in their opinions. This would be an example. The Catholic Church has never taught this. It teaches that marriage is a sacrament. Sacraments confer grace. They can hardly do that and be at the same time “defilement.”
Protestant contra-Catholic polemicists often use this tired tactic: if they can’t find an actual Church document to “prove” some argument of theirs that the Catholic Church is in error, they will look for — typically — either a scholar or a Church father to back themselves up. But we never said that either of those sorts of persons are part of Catholic magisterial authority, so it’s barking up a wrong tree. It’s essentially irrelevant.
there arose a glorification of the state of virginity, and with this a hesitation as to the compatibility of the priestly office with marriage. (p. 176)
Nothing — technically — “arose” because it was already a principle clearly stated in Holy Scripture by our Lord and St. Paul. We only “glorify” what they taught us should be glorified:
Matthew 19:10-12 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” [11] But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. [12] For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”
1 Corinthians 7:7-9 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. [8] To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. [9] But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
1 Corinthians 7:17 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.
1 Corinthians 7:32-35 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; [33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, [34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. [35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. (cf. 7:28)
1 Corinthians 7:38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
In the biblical and Catholic view, one is to serve God in whatever state that God calls one to. Marriage is good and a sacrament (“he who marries . . . does well”) and celibacy is “better” for the reasons that Paul details in this chapter. That’s biblical teaching. We simply follow it, and so we require priests (in the Latin rites, not in eastern Catholicism) to be single, in order to draw from those who are in a state of life that Paul calls “better”.
How Protestants often counter this is to make out that we think marriage is bad because we say that consecrated virginity if heroic self-sacrifice and “better”: as Paul does. It’s not “bad vs. good”; it’s “good and better”. If one has to caricature an opponents’ views in order to “refute” it, then one must have an exceedingly weak case; otherwise, one would critique the actual view and not a distorted, made-up one.
Dr. von Hase does make a fair point when he notes about St. Paul’s view:
He was disposed to wish on account of the present distress that all were as he. . . . No order is to be made in this matter, and his dissuasion from wedlock, subject to such decision and depending completely upon individual tastes and dispositions, is given under the presumption of the approaching end of the world. (p. 175).
This is indeed true. Paul refers to “in view of the present distress” (7:26); however, though his remarks do have that larger context and presupposition, he goes on to make general points about singleness and marriage, that apply to all situations. And Jesus’ remarks in Matthew 19 had nothing to do, in context, with the end times, etc. He said what he did in response to a discussion about divorce under Mosaic Law.
. . . at the great Council of Nicaea – the result of ecclesiastical morality was to demand a victory over nature, and many votes were given in favour of the new decision, . . . (p. 177)
It’s not a matter of overcoming “nature”; rather, it’s an espousal of heroic — strictly personal — renunciation of a good thing, and heroic sacrifice for the sake of the kingdom (great Christian and biblical ideals, last time I checked). Jesus and Paul taught that; we follow it. As I have noted many times in defending Catholic views in this regard, every organization has requirements that one may choose to follow, so as to join, or not. No one is forced at gunpoint to join any group or way of life.
Short people have a hard time playing in the NBA. Those who are allergic to dander would find it difficult being employed at a dog kennel. One who hates preparing meals would not be a chef, etc. ad infinitem. And so, if one is called to marriage by God, then they can’t be a Catholic priest in the western rites. But they can do so in Eastern Catholicism, where it’s permitted. That option is open to them. Catholicism incorporates both visions of the priesthood within itself.
There arose [in the Council of Nicaea] Paphnutius, an Egyptian bishop, . . . (p. 177)
Here we go again, appealing to an individual opinion . . .
who had lost an eye in the Christian persecutions and was so honoured among the people that miracles were ascribed to him. This aged confessor, who had never touched a woman, urged that so heavy a yoke should not be laid upon the priests; moreover that untarnished wedlock was an honourable thing, and the intercourse of the man with an honoured spouse chastity. (p. 177)
The Church never taught otherwise, so this was neither here nor there. But Dr. von Hase barges on and ridiculously continues:
Chastity and marriage are considered as irreconcilable opposites, and marriage thus only as an institution for the legal satisfaction of evil lusts. (p. 183)
This is sheer nonsense. What a disappointment! I was hoping for some serious arguments from this supposedly “unrefuted and irrefutable” two-volume work. Pope Anastasius I wrote in 400: “If anyone . . . believes that human marriages . . . are blameworthy, let him be anathema” (Denzinger #206, 2012 edition, p. 76). Pope John III, writing in 574 — long before celibacy requirements for priests — , was equally clear:
If anyone condemns human marriage and despises the procreation of children . . . let him be anathema.
If anyone says that the formation of the human body is the work of the devil and that the conception of children in their mothers’ womb is brought about through the activity of the devil . . . let him be anathema.
If anyone says that the creation of all flesh is not the work of God but of bad angels . . . let him be anathema. (Denzinger, ibid., #461-463, p. 159)
Marriage is “bad” and sex is “evil”? That’s not Catholic teaching. It was, however, Gnostic and Manichaean teaching, which Pope John III was roundly condemning. Adultery and fornication and other sexual sins are evil, but not sex per se, in a valid marriage.
all voted in support of his view, that it should simply be left to the discretion of individuals whether they should give up intercourse with their wives. (pp. 177-178)
That’s fine. This was the conciliar decision at that time. At a later date, the Church deemed it better to require celibacy for most of her priests, following Paul’s principles in 1 Corinthians 7. This isn’t dogma; it’s discipline and practice, and can change over time, as the Church sees fit.
Where nature is taboo, there arises a danger of the unnatural and the criminal. (p. 181)
Funny that this didn’t happen with John the Baptist, almost all of Jesus’ disciples (save Judas and whoever was married) and St. Paul. They seemed to do quite fine, and all were martyred, save St. John. The Catholic Church has had a long line of consecrated virgin-saints for 2000 years. Rather than closely examine what the Bible has to say on the subject. Dr. von Hase prefers to tell horror stories as attempted disproofs of biblical teaching (another old tactic of those who can provide scarce biblical rationale). Perhaps my favorite such anecdote from Dr. von Hase is this one:
Then come the experiences of the confessional, which, although but seldom including criminality, yet reveal to the unmarried man all the weaknesses of the female sex, and incite him to avail himself of them. (p. 181)
I would say that this is one reason of scores why the Catholic Church requires a very long discernment period with regard to a vocation from God of the priesthood (and the celibate priesthood). One must be called by God to undertake this special consecrated life. It can’t be done under one’s own “power.” For that matter, marriage has many challenges of a different nature as well and requires the same divine power to fulfill. But married men can be tempted, too (as all married men know well).
In any event, these sorts of stories and truisms about the weakness of human concupiscence do not disprove what Jesus and St. Paul taught as truths. All they prove is that some folks sin and fall short (which we already knew without him telling us). We don’t resolve the Catholic-Protestant dispute simply by trading scandalous stories of lousy examples of each group. Nothing’s accomplished by that. In the end, it has to be decided by the Holy Bible that we both hold to be God’s inspired revelation.
The celibacy of priests rests simply upon an ecclesiastical law which, as it once came into being, so can again fall into disuse. It was only by sophistry that the Council of Trent succeeded in making it into a dogma, . . . (p. 183)
Dr. von Hase correctly describes the status of celibacy in his first sentence, then oddly and surprisingly enough, contradicts himself in his second. A dogma is far different from an ecclesiastical practice or discipline. Trent simply stated that consecrated virginity is superior to marriage:
If anyone says that the married state excels the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is better and happier to be united in matrimony than to remain in virginity or celibacy, let him be anathema. (Canon X on the Sacrament of Matrimony)
This, of course, reiterates what St. Paul plainly taught:
1 Corinthians 7:32-35, 38 . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; [33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, [34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. [35] I say this for your own benefit, . . . to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. . . . [38] . . . he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
This being the case, why is Dr. von Hase not disputing against St. Paul rather than misrepresenting and blasting the Council of Trent? Well, we know why: that wouldn’t look very good for his case. The “whipping boy” is supposed to be the big bad Catholic Church: not apostles and the Bible. That would be bad PR. But whether this isn’t evident in his words or not, this is what it comes down to (its logical reduction): he opposed Paul and inspired Scripture from God, which the Catholic Church is simply being obedient to.
Obviously, it’s not a command for all to be celibate, but Paul does teach that consecrated celibacy is “better” than marriage and this is what lies behind the Catholic view on celibate priests and nuns. It’s “better” because it involves heroic renunciation of a sort that Paul understands well, since he gave up many things and suffered much in order to be the greatest evangelist of all time and the intellectual theologian of the New Testament. He wrote about this:
2 Corinthians 11:23-28 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one — I am talking like a madman — with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. [24] Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. [25] Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; [26] on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; [27] in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. [28] And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches.
2 Corinthians 12:10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
Philippians 3:7-8 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. [8] Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, . . .
Philippians 4:11-12 Not that I complain of want; for I have learned, in whatever state I am, to be content. [12] I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound; in any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and want.
St. Paul knew all about voluntary suffering and deprivation for the sake of the kingdom and his calling as an evangelist and writer of much of the New Testament. St. Luke records the words of God concerning Paul: “I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name” (Acts 9:16). Catholic priests give up marriage and family for the sake of devotion to a higher and noble cause. It’s the same biblical, Christian self-sacrificing principle and is only a matter of degree.
the true substantial question is lost sight of, viz. whether the Church is justified and compelled, forbidding what Christ has left open, to demand the vow of celibacy from her priests? (p. 183)
Our Lord Jesus Christ didn’t leave this “open”! He said, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. . . . there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it” (Matthew 19:11-12). We simply say that Catholic priests are the equivalent of those whom Jesus described as “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”
Then He noted twice when He said this, how there will be men who cannot “receive” it because it hasn’t been “given” to them. In other words, it’s spiritually discerned by those given the grace by God to comprehend it. Dr. von Hase, unfortunately, seems to be among men of that class, who are unable to “receive” this teaching. And so basically he caricatures, mocks, and dismisses it. But he has not come within a thousand miles of dismantling the strong biblical case to be made for it. He scarcely even tries.
If we want to accuse someone of lowering marriage from what it is and ought to be, I would say that Protestantism is the far greater culprit, since it took away the sacramental status of marriage. I guess that means that Protestants no longer thought that it conveyed grace. And, more and more they allow divorce (which we don’t at all) and they cheapen marriage also by accepting contraception, which works against procreation and the love of children (and has directly led to abortion, philosophically and legally), and, more and more, premarital sex and homosexual sex: all of which cheapens marriage and makes it less holy than it is, and all of which we absolutely oppose, as we always have.
Much of this would have also been opposed in 19th century German Lutheranism, no doubt. One can thus hope that if Dr. von Hase were alive today, he would sing a much different tune, and go after legitimate blameworthy targets, rather than bogus ones.
Married priests, said Perrone, would not go with the same readiness as missionaries among barbarous nations. (p. 185)
Martin Luther was ashamed to see that it was the single Catholic priests who went to minister to the sick during epidemics or the outbreak of highly contagious diseases in his Saxony. The married Lutheran pastors with families were too afraid to do so.
Further it is alleged that the married priest is held back by innumerable domestic cares for his household, for his wife and children, from the sole care of his soul. (p. 185)
Yes; that was essentially “alleged” by the Apostle Paul, as we saw above. Dr. von Hase needs to argue against the proper target, rather than pretending that he (Paul) isn’t relevant to the discussion.
A capable man has time for everything which it becomes him to do. (p. 186)
Every man has the limitations of time and can’t minister with the same quality to more and more people, adding up to many hundreds in many cases. One person can only do so much; only so many hours in a day. It’s a very practical, sensible concern: how to get good things done more efficiently and successfully.
The Council of Trent, from the superior favour accorded to virginity as compared with the wedded state, . . . [made] merely an aesthetic judgement which is formed upon slender grounds and about which a warm dispute can be carried on, . . . (p. 188)
“Merely . . . aesthetic”? Again, it simply followed Paul’s straightforward teaching. Dr. von Hase apparently thinks that he and all Protestants by extension can reject whatever they don’t personally care for in Scripture. It’s a denial of biblical inerrancy, inspiration, and infallibility. But I understand that he was considered a theological “liberal” in his time, and this is what we always get from them: condescension towards Holy Scripture as well as Holy Tradition.
The motive . . . which mainly is responsible for the Catholic notion of assigning superior favour to the virgin state, viz. the worship of the Holy Virgin, . . . (p. 188)
I see. I guess Paul had nothing to do with it, huh? Again, we follow Paul: “let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him” (1 Cor 7:17). If it’s consecrated celibacy, one must follow that; if it’s marriage, one must do that.
Not that I would wish to deny that there have existed many truly Catholic priests, who have lived only for their sacred office and their congregations, vanquishing the weaknesses of the flesh, and relinquishing that higher something offered by God. The very thought that as standing in the midst between God and mankind they were by the special favour of God raised above the common lot of men, may easily unite with the sentiment of spiritual insufficiency in themselves to induce pious fervour. There exists an ideal of the Catholic priesthood as of the Protestant pastor with his parsonage, and there are to be found in real life numerous approximations to both. The Catholic ladder, from the highest dignitaries of the Church, here and there still possessed of princely rank and riches, down to the poor chaplain and mendicant friar, has at any rate something impressive, and harmonizes with the essential nature of a Church, which with its brilliant externals yet desires to embrace all the relationships of life. (p. 192)
Thank you! At least it wasn’t all negative and caricature . . . I’ll end on this positive note, then.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit: Karl August von Hase (1800-1890), in 1890 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Summary: I offer biblically based responses to several arguments against priestly celibacy from the German Lutheran Karl August von Hase (1800-1890) in his allegedly “irrefutable” work.
His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
***
In favour of the veneration due to relics, the case of the man raised up to life on touching the bones of Elisha (2 Kings xiii. 21) is quoted. But that incident, if part of the original book, stands completely isolated, and even that miracle did not lead to the worship of the prophet’s bones. (p. 190)
First, Rev. Wright casts doubt on whether the passage is actually part of Holy Scripture, sinking to the methodology of the most radical biblical critics (up to and including atheists), who habitually are suspicious of the text of canonical Scripture, rather than holding to biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility, as consistent Christians of all stripes do. This is the length that this Anglican will go in order to reject Catholic, biblical teaching. It’s very telling, isn’t it?
Then in his next desperate move to avoid the clear implication of the text, he says that the occurrence was “completely isolated.” Whether something is mentioned once or a hundred times is irrelevant as to whether it is inspired (as part of God-breathed revelation) or true. The Annunciation, for example, was a one-time event in Scripture: mentioned only in Luke, and that was the announcement of the incarnation. This is simply an unworthy debate tactic. Moreover, whether veneration of Elisha’s bones was mentioned in this place or occurred in history (whether recorded or not) is irrelevant to the conclusions that we draw from what happened. It is what it is.
Then he uses the usual tactic of irrationally and cynically collapsing all reverence and veneration into “worship” so that it sounds like idolatry. But even his own citation, drawn from the Council of Trent uses the phrase “veneration and honour.” This is all standard playbook anti-Catholicism: fundamentally silly and a gross misrepresentation of what Catholics believe. We believe that physical matter can be a conveyor of spiritual grace. This is the foundation for the use of relics (objects associated with saints) and sacramentals (sacred or devotional objects).
Veneration of the saints and their relics is essentially different from the kind of worship or adoration reserved for God alone, in that it is a high honor given to something or someone because of the grace revealed or demonstrated in them from God. The relic (and the saint from whom it is derived) reflects the greatness of God just as a masterpiece of art or music reflects the greatness of the artist or composer. Therefore, in such veneration, it’s God being honored. The saint or his or her relics reflect God’s grace and holiness. To worship as divine a saint or relic is not following Catholic teaching, which fully agrees with Protestantism with regard to the evil of idolatry.
In the passage about Elisha’s bones, from 2 Kings, matter clearly imparts God’s miraculous grace. That is all that is needed for Catholics reasonably and scripturally to hold such relics in the highest regard and honor (veneration). It is not necessary for the entire doctrine of veneration to be spelled out in the verse, only the fundamental assumption behind it (matter can convey grace), which is the basis for the Catholic belief and practice. We are physical creatures; God became man, and so by the principle of the incarnation and sacramentalism, the physical becomes involved in the spiritual. What we believe about relics is based on these biblical presuppositions.
Many Protestants (including Martin Luther himself, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Churches of Christ) accept this principle with regard to the waters of baptism, which, so they hold, cause spiritual regeneration to occur, even in an infant. That is, again, matter (water) conveying grace (regeneration). And so Elisha’s bones raised a man from the dead. Why would anyone wish to downplay or minimize that? It’s because they are irrationally unbiblical.
The touching of the hem of Christ’s garment (Matt. ix. 20) was a sign of faith in Christ, but not a proof of any virtue in His clothes. (pp. 190-191)
Again, he misses the fundamental point. The woman did have commendable faith. But it’s not the clothes themselves. It’s the fact that they were connected with Jesus. They conveyed grace and healing for that reason and no other. Let’s do a quick thought experiment. Imagine a scenario in which somehow we could verify that a shirt was worn by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and came into the possession of Rev. Wright. Do you think he (or anyone) would make a rag out of it, for use in cleaning a cow stall or grease from a car? I think not. It would be reverenced and cherished for its association with Christ. That’s 90% of the way towards the Catholic understanding of a relic.
Protestants enjoy visiting Israel as much as anyone else. And they reverence the holy places there, and do things like touch the star where Jesus was born or the white hill underneath where He was crucified. That’s reverence for holy places. They may not think that they literally receive grace in doing so, but it’s close. They wouldn’t ever consider for even a moment, bulldozing any of these holy places and making a parking lot or a McDonalds. Yet they inconsistently fight against the idea of relics and veneration given to them. Part of the antipathy, no doubt, is because many have this false notion that we are worshiping them as if they are equal to God Himself. It’s not true. They might represent or be associated with God or a saint, but that doesn’t make them equal to them. It doesn’t make them idols. They’re neither replacing God nor placed above Him.
Extraordinary was the faith of the people in Peter after the awful deaths of Ananias and Sapphira. But although they imagined Peter’s shadow could heal the sick, the text does not state that as a fact (Acts v. 15, 16). (p. 191)
This is very interesting. In his rush to immediately discount any Catholic biblical argument in favor of relics, he is led to the conclusion that this didn’t refer to healing as a result of Peter’s shadow. But even his own Protestant commentators massively disagree with him. They generally hold that healings likely did occur. I provide ten examples below.
Acts 5:12-16 Now many signs and wonders were done among the people by the hands of the apostles. And they were all together in Solomon’s Portico. [13] None of the rest dared join them, but the people held them in high honor. [14] And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women, [15] so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. [16] The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.
Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: (15) Insomuch that theybrought forth the sick . . .—The tense implies habitual action. For some days or weeks the sick were laid all along the streets—the broad open streets, as distinct from the lanes and alleys (see Note on Matthew 6:5)—by which the Apostle went to and fro between his home and the Temple.
*
That at the least the shadow of Peter . . . .—It is implied in the next verse that the hope was not disappointed. . . . Christ healed sometimes directly by a word, without contact of any kind (Matthew 8:13; John 4:52); sometimes through material media—the fringe of His garment (Matthew 9:20), or the clay smeared over the blind man’s eyes (John 9:5) becoming channels through which the healing virtue passed. All that was wanted was the expectation of an intense faith, as the subjective condition on the one side, the presence of an objective supernatural power on the other, and any medium upon which the imagination might happen to fix itself as a help to faith. So afterwards the “hand, kerchiefs and aprons” from St. Paul’s skin do what the shadow of St. Peter does here (Acts 19:12). In the use of oil, as in Mark 6:13, James 5:14, we find a medium employed which had in itself a healing power, with which the prayer of faith was to co-operate.
Benson Commentary: . . . in order that, if they could neither have access to Peter, nor he come to them, at least the shadow of him passing by might overshadow some of them — Though it could not reach them all, and they had faith to believe this would be the means of healing them. And it is probable that they were not disappointed, but that some, at least, were thus healed, as the woman mentioned in the gospel was, by touching Christ’s garment. According to their faith it was done unto them. And in this, among other things, the promise of Christ, (John 14:12,) The works that I do, shall ye also do, and greater works than these, &c., was eminently fulfilled. And if such miracles were wrought by Peter’s shadow, we have reason to think some were wrought in some such way by the other apostles; as by the handkerchiefs from Paul’s body, Acts 19:12.
Expositor’s Greek Testament: The further question arises in spite of the severe strictures of Zeller, Overbeck, Holtzmann, as to how far the narrative indicates that the shadow of Peter actually produced the healing effects. Acts 5:16 shows that the sick folk were all healed, but Zöckler maintains that there is nothing to show that St. Luke endorses the enthusiastic superstition of the people (so J. Lightfoot, Nösgen, Lechler, Rendall). On the other hand we may compare Matthew 9:20, Mark 6:56, John 9:5, Acts 19:12; and Baumgarten’s comment should be considered that, although it is not actually said that a miraculous power went forth from Peter’s shadow, it is a question why, if no such power is implied, the words should be introduced at all into a narrative which evidently purports to note the extraordinary powers of the Apostles. . . . as Blass says, Luke does not distinctly assert that cures were wrought by the shadow of Peter, although there is no reason to deny that the Evangelist had this in mind, since he does not hesitate to refer the same miraculous powers to St. Paul.
Henry Alford, Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary: We need find no stumbling-block in the fact of Peter’s shadow having been believed to be the medium (or, as is surely implied, having been the medium) of working miracles. Cannot the ‘Creator Spirit’ work with any instruments, or with none, as pleases Him? And what is a hand or a voice, more than a shadow, except that the analogy of the ordinary instrument is a greater help to faith in the recipient? Where faith, as apparently here, did not need this help, the less likely medium was adopted.
[John] Calvin’s Commentaries: the apostles were endued with such power for this cause, because they were ministers of the gospel. Therefore they used this gift, inasmuch as it served to further the credit of the gospel; yea, God did no less show forth his power in their shadow than in their mouth.
F. F. Bruce, New International Commentary, Book of Acts(revised version, Eerdmans, 1988, p. 109): Peter’s shadow was as efficacious a medium of healing power as the hem of his Master’s robe had been. No wonder that the people in general sounded the apostles’ praises and that the number of believers increased.
C. Peter Wagner, The Book of Acts: A Commentary (Baker, 2008): Apparently Peter, at the time, was ministering in the role of what some would call a “faith healer” today. Others were doing miracles as well, but it seems that Peter had a special anointing.
Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles (Eerdmans, 1998, p. 227): It is not clear whether Luke also holds this belief, but v. 16b probably suggests he did (cf. Acts 19:12 [Paul’s handkerchiefs]).
Aprons were, indeed, on one occasion brought from the body of Paul ( Acts xix. 11 , 12); but if ever extraordinary miracles were required, it was at Ephesus, the great stronghold of magical arts. (p. 191)
I see. It’s almost like Rev. Wright begrudgingly concedes that a relic-like miracle did occur; but only “on one occasion”, mind you! Then he tries to irrationally water it down or minimize its strength as a Catholic proof for relics by making the odd comment that it was especially needed at Ephesus. That’s simply an irrelevant diversion; what is called a non sequitur. Rev. Wright has not succeeded in disproving the fact that the principle behind the Catholic belief in relics and their power is clearly taught in the Bible. He belittles, attempts to minimize, is dismissive, and doesn’t even seem to take the topic seriously (all traits very common in anti-Catholic polemics), but he doesn’t disprove our view; not even within a million miles.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit: St. Peter Healing the Sick with His Shadow (1425), by Masaccio (1401-1428) [public domain / Get Archive]
Summary: I reply to several weak mini-arguments from the Anglican, Charles Henry Hamilton Wright (1836-1909), against the biblical conception of the spiritual power of relics.
Yes; a supernatural healing is what I’m claiming, and I can substantiate it with both my history of stomach problems and the systematic way in which I’ve experimented over a two-week period by trying out the various, numerous foods I haven’t been able to eat — most for many years — , since the suspected miracle. I went about it pretty much as the Church does when it investigates purported miraculous occurrences of various sorts, with an examination entailing empirical evidence and reason. That’s not skepticism; rather, it’s the blending of belief in the miraculous, with objective ways of determining when a specific purported miracle has actually occurred or not, so that it can more effectively be shared to the world as a testimony of God’s power and mercy and love.
I’ve never been skeptical of miracles since I dedicated my life to God in the spring of 1977. I have defended them in my writings and have always believed — both as a Protestant evangelical and as a Catholic — that all the charismatic gifts are operative in the Church today, and that even the most dramatic, extraordinary miracles still occur: such as the raising of the dead. In fact, I have been saying since 1978 that I was healed of serious, clinical depression, that I experienced for about six months in 1977. I’ve never had serious depression since that time.
Let me describe my background in this respect. Once it’s understood, the striking nature of the miraculous healing is all the more manifest. I used to eat absolutely anything I wanted (and — those were the days! — wouldn’t gain any weight, either) up till about roughly the time I got married (October 1984) at age 26. But in 1983 I started eating a lot less sugar, as I had hypoglycemia.
At that time, many doctors were very skeptical that the condition even existed (it was usually collapsed into a variant of diabetes if it was acknowledged at all): much as many doctors today are skeptical regarding fibromyalgia and Lyme Disease. But I read a few books, figured out that it was likely what I had (since I felt lousy at the ripe old age of 25 and otherwise healthy). So I started the new diet and in due course (after a withdrawal period) I felt great.
My wife Judy and I have tried to eat as healthy as finances allowed throughout our entire marriage, and we strongly believe in holistic health, alternative medicine, and herbalism (while not in the least discounting the many great treatments of conventional medicine: “both/and”), and have experienced the relief or disappearance of many symptoms and maladies through the years, that I have written about, so others could benefit from the same knowledge.
One of the first things I remember with regard to difficulties when eating certain foods would have been in the second half of the 80s, with extracts. This problem may have also been with alcohol, because they all have them. I discovered that after we made various puddings and cookies that included extracts. The next thing I recall having a big problem with is salad dressing, where the culprit is vinegar. Acidic foods are very numerous and go far beyond citric acid (as in orange juice) and acetic acid (vinegar).
Increasingly through the years it became clear that I had the classic ulcer symptoms, and had problems with acidy foods, herbs and spices, pepper, concentrated or dried foods, extracts, alcohol, and carbonated drinks. Scientists now know that ulcers do not derive from simply worrying too much and/or stress in general (‘m not a “worrier” type anyway). The most common cause is a bacteria, Helicobacter pylori. A second cause is the over-use or extended use of NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicines): pain and fever medicines such as aspirin, ibuprofen, and naproxen (none of which I take; I use acetaminophen [Tylenol]). I’ve taken various digestive aids for many years (particularly one called Super-Digestaway, which has become very expensive).
In addition to an ulcer, I seem to have developed IBS (irritable bowel syndrome) or something like it. This caused me to have trouble digesting food just about every day. The problems (usually bloating) generally started in the mid-afternoon and extended into the evenings and sometimes overnight, too. Not infrequently I’d wake up in pain in the middle of the night, and pop Rolaids. I also increasingly had difficulties when I didn’t eat often enough. It’s thought that the onset of IBS may be triggered by a great amount of stress, and I did indeed experience extreme stress and even severe trauma in the year 2024.
So that’s where I was at on March 10th (eleven days ago as I write): chomping Rolaids like candy, using a heating pad almost every night to relieve the bloating, heartburn, sour stomach, cramping, and plain old stomach aches. At the worst times I would take a hot bath or drink chamomile tea. Blessedly, all four of these remedies worked pretty well. But they were strictly temporary, and I wanted more than a “Band-Aid”. I resolved to try to get rid of the root causes, because it gets old having to do these things every day. I was starting to not even enjoy eating, which had never happened before.
I tried the standard conventional “triple therapy” treatment for ulcers (having no objection to it: “if it works, it works” [pragmatism]). According to one study in the journal, Digestion, it brought about a cure rate of 84%. But for some reason I was in the 16%. Then I tried various and sundry natural (usually herbal) remedies, including one herb known in Brazil, recommended by a doctor there who knew me on Facebook. That didn’t work, either. So I restricted my diet more and more, eventually trying to eat less at a time, too (which is said to help), but nothing worked. I’ve also sought to avoid excessive seed oils (I earned that oils are high-acid, too), after doing some research on that, and bioengineered foods and harmful additives to food, in the last six months, and to eat as many non-GMO / organic foods as I can find — and afford, as they can be quite pricey.
Apart from my family, people who have been following my work, especially on Facebook, are familiar with my stomach problems, because I have written about them several times and put up low-acid / low-spice recipes. They know what I’ve gone through, and that it has been a long-term and relatively serious problem. Of course “in-person” friends are also aware of this, since it comes up every time I am at some gathering and food is provided, or at restaurants. This also verifies the miraculous nature of what has happened to me.
I attended this event at St. Patrick’s Catholic Parish in Brighton, Michigan, on Monday evening, March 10th, 2025. After a time of worship and a few testimonies of past healings, several teams of prayer-warriors (usually consisting of four people) were formed in order to pray for specific healing requests. When my turn came, I explained to one of the teams what my problems were (basically a very brief capsule summary of the above). They started praying, together at first and then one-by-one. While the fourth person was praying, I experienced a “flushed” feeling, or warmth in my head which then went down with a sort of tingling to my stomach: what I described to them as “like goose-bumps.”
Apparently, in healings, there is often some sort of feeling like this. They then prayed a second time, individually, but the experience didn’t happen again. I thanked them all and wondered if I had been healed or not. I didn’t rule it out, especially since my daughter had told me that according to what she had learned in her studies attending Encounter, that sometimes it took a day or two before people experienced healings after prayer. Time would tell.
On either Monday or Tuesday night (this is the only detail I don’t remember for certain), as I was laying in bed about to go to sleep, I experienced an intense sort of little “explosion” in the pit of my stomach and very intense pain for maybe 10-20 seconds. I thought that this might possibly be another manifestation or sign of a healing, because of its unique nature. I had the usual problems and symptoms on Tuesday, the day after the prayers for healing. But starting on Wednesday (March 12th), the symptoms of ulcer and IBS disappeared, and have not returned since (thirteen days ago as I write).
Being systematic and methodical as I am, I decided after four days of this, to start testing out foods, to verify whether a miraculous healing had occurred. On Sunday (March 16th) on the way to church I announced to my wife and daughter that I may have been healed, because of the lack of all adverse symptoms for four days, and after church the first thing I ate was a large order of crinkle fries at Arby’s, with a significant amount of ketchup (i.e., vinegar).I could still eat fries prior to the healing, but it had to be without ketchup (boring!). Even so I noticed that when I ate them at home, I would react to the (acidy) olive oil on the potatoes (even from an organic brand that we bought). I couldn’t win for losing! But this time, I had no adverse reaction at all.
On Tuesday, March 18th, I had a granola cereal for breakfast that gave me trouble the time before (from oil, cinnamon, and cardamom). Then for lunch I had a tuna sandwich with mayo and pickles. For dinner I had homemade pizza on whole wheat pita bread (we’ve done that for 40 years) with (acidy) pineapples, and at night, Triscuit crackers. The oil in those had caused me problems a week or so earlier. But after all of that “forbidden” food in one day, my stomach and intestines were perfectly fine.
On Wednesday, March 19th, “Day Nine” after the healing, I had another tuna sandwich and hot rice cereal with raisins (the latter had been a digestive problem, as a dried food). Again, success!
On Thursday, March 20th, Day Ten, I had more fries and ketchup for a snack in the evening, with no problems again.
On Friday, March 21st, Day 11, I had more Triscuits and cheese for lunch. For dinner we had what used to be one of my favorite foods: tuna salad, with whole wheat elbow noodles, sweet relish, and mayo. The mayonnaise (from the brand Simple Truth, sold at Kroger’s and with a taste very similar to Miracle Whip) itself contained vinegar, soybean oil, egg yolk, mustard, and lemon juice: all of which I couldn’t previously eat for some time.
It was fabulous! I remarked over dinner how I was really starting to enjoy food again, as it should be. I had almost lost that pleasure, even with my favorite foods: perhaps largely because of the boredom and repetition of a severely restricted diet. I guess the anxiety about adverse reactions might psychologically work against the pleasure of taste buds, too. At night, I snacked on toast with butter, honey and cinnamon. But now everything was again fine. God is so good and loving!
On Saturday, March 22nd, Day 12, at dinnertime I “dared” to attempt the “nuclear option”: pizza (Jet’s, Detroit deep dish style) with pepperoni and green peppers. For years, I have continued to eat pizza made with pineapple chunks, which were removed before I ate (one still tastes the juice). At least I could still eat that. My drink at dinner was A&W root beer. All of this was successful too.
On Sunday, March 23rd, Day 13, I continued testing by having a ham sandwich with mayo, mustard, ketchup, and “hot” pickles. For dinner, the “new” foods were sweet and sour sauce (Kraft brand) on breaded chicken (I used to also love that combination as a kid). No problems!
On Monday, March 24th, Day 14, I had root beer for my drink at lunch. No symptoms at all. If anyone has a “natural” explanation for this, feel free! I’d love to see it.
I think I can safely say that the healing of my ulcer and IBS is by now more than abundantly confirmed. Praise God! All glory and honor to Him! It gives me great pleasure to be able to proclaim this testimony and report (with evidence from my own experience) that God is still in the healing business today, just as He always has been. I’ve experienced it now twice. As you can see, this miracle has been thoroughly and exhaustively documented. Others in my family have had healings, too. My son Paul had a serious knee problem that was healed on the same night. And he had been healed before some years ago of a muscular and bone issue.
The two mistakes people all too frequently make with regard to healing miracles involve going to one of two extremes: believing either that God never heals in this day and age or that He always does, by our command, as it were (a serious and dangerous error that I refuted at length in a treatise way back in 1982, as a Protestant charismatic: one of my first major apologetics efforts). Don’t let the devil mislead you with either of these lies. What we do know — from the Bible and from scientific and eyewitness verification — is that God still heals today: in His own time and place and for His own purposes: usually unknown or not fully known by us mere mortals. It usually is connected with a strong faith in the person who is healed, but not always, per the Bible and the experience of observation. That said, no one has anything to lose and has a lot to possibly gain by asking and praying for healing. It’s very real. I urge all to believe it, and pray for it. Don’t ignore this part of the Bible. Unfortunately, however, most Catholic parishes do ignore or disbelieve it, and that’s a great shame.
To top it off, I looked up what feast day fell on March 10th: the day I was healed. It’s St. John Ogilvie (1579-1615), a Scotsman who was raised in a noble family as a Calvinist, converted, and became a Jesuit priest and martyr. He’s the only post-“Reformation” Scottish saint. Being part Scottish myself (Armstrong being a border clan), and a convert, I think it’s very appropriate. I love how God is involved in every detail. He’s wonderful in that way
ADDENDUM 1 (3-26-25): Garlic and Onion Factors
I did experience on 3-25-25 my first adverse digestive issue in two weeks (semi-diarrhea). So what I did is do what I’ve always done: trace what I ate and determine what food correlates with the problem. And what I had eaten was, in the space of a few days, two 8 oz, bags of Lays’ Barbecue Chips, mostly accompanied by French Onion dip. I had a lot of that last might at about 11 PM by itself, so there was a clear correlation. Now, what do they both have in common? It’s dried onion and garlic. I did a little quick research on that (and the related onion and garlic powder) and discovered, apart from the obvious matter of greater concentration, that dried onion and garlic often have unlisted preservatives added to them, too. I think it’s this distinction, plus the great quantities I have eaten in testing the miracle, and my usual not-enough-water, that are the culprits. The dip is sour cream-based, too (see Addendum 2 below).
What this reveals to me is that I’m still sensitive (if not allergic) to at least the dried / dehydrated type of onion and garlic. I have, in fact, been eating some amount of “straight” garlic and onion for years with no problem, in our old standby, Little Caesar’s pizza. And I have had it in spaghetti sauce (Prego or Ragu) that we use for homemade pizza, our entire marriage; and we would put onion slices on top of homemade baked beans in the crock pot, etc. This shows me that it’s the dried, concentrated element and/or “hidden” preservatives added to it that is likely the specific problem, and that it’s probably still possible to eat both in much smaller quantities.
With the above qualifications in mind, I have removed the foods that I reported as having eaten with no problem that had onion and/or garlic in them, so I’m not misrepresenting anything. It’s true that for two weeks I had no symptoms of digestive problems at all (I didn’t exaggerate or misreport anything), so there is some mystery to this, and God wants us to use our minds to analyze things, and to be sensible and balanced and prudent. The many and various foods that remain listed above in all my days of testing, have been eaten without any adverse reactions.
ADDENDUM 2 (4-9-25): Regarding Food Allergies or Sensitivities
I originally claimed that I was healed of my ulcer, irritable bowel syndrome (IBC) and “food allergies.” At the time, after massive testing of various foods, that seemed to be the case, by all indications. But now, thirty days after my healing took place, it appears fairly certain that I was not healed of all of my “food difficulties” or allergies or “oversensitivity” to certain foods. I have sought to be scientific and reasoned about this all along and to be as candid and honest as I can be. It’s still evident — I want to emphasize this — that I have been healed of my ulcer and IBS, because the symptoms of those are very clear: particularly the negative response to acids and spices and other classic symptoms (ulcer) and the distinctive daily bloating, usually in the evening (IBS). Those are gone, and there hasn’t been any variability in (the absence of) my reactions.
It’s simply a matter of accurately identifying exactly what was healed and what is not healed as I go through my daily eating routine. Digestive difficulties are complex and multi-faceted. It seems that I still have, for example, my lactose intolerance. And yesterday I had mushroom soup for the first time in many 30 (?) years, and had an adverse reaction that could only have been that. I’m still not totally sure about peanut butter and eggs (two foods that many people have trouble digesting), and have to test those some more. So some of these non-ulcer / non-IBS problems were not healed. I can still say that I have a “sensitive stomach.” As with the garlic and onion, I will remove references to these foods, and modify my title too, so as not to leave an erroneous impression.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
Photo credit: Healing of the Blind Man, by Carl Bloch (1834-1890) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Summary: I explain in great detail and specificity, the miraculous healing of my serious digestive problems on 3-10-25, including a rundown of numerous “tests” I did to verify the change.
Particularly With Regard to Being Led by the Holy Spirit
Photo credit: Image of the title page of The Faith of Our Forefathers (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 6th edition, 1879), by Edward Josiah Stearns [public domain / Bookmarxbooks page for this title]
Edward Josiah Stearns (1810-1890) was an Episcopal clergyman from Maryland and author of several books. His volume, The Faith of Our Forefathers (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1879), was a reply to The Faith of Our Fathers(1876), by James Cardinal Gibbons (1834-1921), one of the best and most well-known Catholic apologetics works, with an emphasis on scriptural arguments and replies to Protestant critiques of Catholicism. It had sold over 1.4 million copies by the time of its 83rd edition in 1917 and was the most popular book in the United States until Gone With the Wind was published in 1939. This volume highly influenced my own development as a soon-to-be Catholic apologist in the early 1990s: especially with regard to my usual modus operandi of focusing on “biblical evidence” for Catholicism.
The words of Rev. Stearns will be in blue, and those of Cardinal Gibbons in green. I use RSV for biblical citations.
***
Another “shining mark” of the Church, though not contained in the creed, is, according to the Archbishop, her ” Infallible Authority.”
“That the Church was infallible in the Apostolic age, is denied by no Christian. We never question the truth of the Apostles’ declarations; they were, in fact, the only authority in the Church for the first century. The New Testament was not completed till the close of the first century. There is no just ground for denying to the Apostolic teachers of the nineteenth century in which we live, a prerogative clearly possessed by those of the first, especially as the divine Word nowhere intimates that this unerring guidance was to die with the Apostles”(p. 83).
There is an unmistakable “intimation” in St. John, 14:25, 26, that this guidance was “to die with” them: “These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is 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.” The part I have italicized, confines the promise to the Apostles; it is physically impossible that it should be fulfilled to their successors. (pp. 47-48)
This is very odd exegesis. Rev. Stearns seems blissfully unaware that the disciples and apostles represented Christian authority in perpetuity. The Holy Spirit was to be the Guide and Helper of Church leaders. It makes no sense that this was to be the case only for the apostles, and then cease to exist. But such is the bankruptcy in many Protestant circles with regard to the continuance of charismatic gifts. The Protestant Benson Commentary states: “Here is a clear promise to the apostles, and their successors in the faith, that the Holy Ghost should teach them all that truth which was needful for their salvation.”
But if a Protestant wishes to claim that this promise of profound assistance from the Holy Spirit applied only to the disciples — despite the fact that the Holy Spirit indwells every believer — , then he would have to explain why St. Paul casually assumes that He would also be operative as a spiritual Guide for each non-apostle Gentile Christian (thus, by extension, every Christian at all times):
Romans 8:14, 16 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. . . . it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words.
1 Corinthians 2:14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?
1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:7-11 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. [8] To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, [9] to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, [10] to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. [11] All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
2 Corinthians 3:17-18 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. [18] And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.
Ephesians 3:5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; [prophets were not apostles, and the office of prophet and gift of prophecy is present in the new covenant and continues on, as is assumed in the New Testament]
Hebrews 10:15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; . . .
2 Peter 1:21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
This charism was to be passed on in a special way to the leaders of the Church:
2 Timothy 1:14 guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us. (cf. Acts 15:28 below)
The Archbishop’s argument is, An infallible God cannot create a fallible Church. He might as well argue that an infallible God cannot create a fallible man. We know that an infallible God did create a fallible Church, to wit, the Jewish; the fact, therefore, that the Catholic Church was created by an infallible God, is no proof that she is herself infallible. (p. 51)
That’s true as far as it goes, but is a non sequitur, since the Bible teaches — apart from all of these observations — that the Church is infallible:
Acts 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: . . . [this is a council of the Church in Jerusalem at that time, led by “apostles and elders” (16:4) — elders not being apostles — and prevented from error by the Holy Spirit Himself; hence, infallible]
Acts 16:4 As they [Paul and Silas] went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. [the decrees from the council were binding on Christians far and wide; this is assuredly not a local church ecclesiology. Silas was also a prophet (15:32)]
Now, one might argue about where this infallible Church is to be found, or whether it is the Catholic Church led by popes, but the Bible undoubtedly teaches that the Church was to be infallible: in the general assertion of 1 Timothy 3:15 and the concrete application and exercise of this authority at the Jerusalem Council: to which even St. Paul is bound.
In the same chapter, Rev. Stearns trots out the obligatory polemical arguments regarding Popes Vigilius and Honorius, who supposedly disproved the decree on papal infallibility in 1870 at Vatican I in their beliefs and actions (they did not). What he doesn’t do (also almost obligatory) is present the Catholic counter-argument in each case. I have several links which will provide that service to my readers:
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit: Image of the title page of The Faith of Our Forefathers (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 6th edition, 1879), by Edward Josiah Stearns [public domain / Bookmarxbooks page for this title]
Summary: Reply to Anglican Edward Josiah Stearns regarding the Church’s infallibility, including passages about the Holy Spirit’s leading, 1 Timothy 3:15, & the Jerusalem council.
François Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan-ItalianReformed scholastictheologian and renowned defender of theCalvinistic(Reformed) orthodoxyrepresented by theSynod of Dort, and was one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus (1675). He is generally considered to be the best Calvinist apologist besides John Calvin himself. HisInstitutes of Elenctic Theology(three volumes, Geneva, 1679–1685) used the scholasticmethod. “Elenctic”means“refuting an argument by proving the falsehood of its conclusion.” Turretin contended against the conflicting Christian perspectives of Catholicism andArminianism. It was a popular textbook; notably atPrinceton Theological Seminary, until it was replaced by Charles Hodge’sSystematic Theology in the late 19th century. Turretin also greatly influenced thePuritans.
This is a reply to portions of a section of Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 3, 19th Topic: The Sacraments / 28th Question: The Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Supper and the Oral Manducation of It). I utilizethe edition translated by George Musgrave Giger and edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: 1992 / 1994 / 1997; 2320 pages). It uses the KJV for Bible verses. I will use RSV unless otherwise indicated. All installments of this series of replies can be found on myCalvinism & General Protestantism web page, under the category, “Replies to Francois Turretin (1632-1687).” Turretin’s words will be inblue.
*****
Is Christ corporeally present in the Eucharist, and is he eaten with the mouth by believers? We deny against the Romanists and Lutherans.
And they “deny” against the Church fathers, medieval theologians, and the Bible. Not a good place to be . . .
The fiction of transubstantiation having been overthrown, . . .
I must have missed it. But it’s not overthrown if I am around to shoot down the weak and insufficient and radically unbiblical arguments against it. One day all saved believers will know what the truth of the matter is and will all agree. What a marvelous and blessed concept!: total unity. How sad that it was supposed to be like that in the Church all along.
The Scriptures so often propose to us the communion of the body and blood of Christ as the foundation and source of all his blessings . . .
Isn’t it odd and sad that Turretin can so casually and frequently make reference to “the body and blood of Christ” while at the same time denying that it really is that? But that’s the first thing that theological falsehood and heresy do: change the plain meanings of words.
Hence they invented a local and corporeal presence in order that it might be eaten with the mouth.
We didn’t invent anything. Jesus introduced these ideas, that had never crossed anyone’s mind:
John 6:50-51, 53-58 “This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. . . . if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. . . . unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. . . . he who eats me will live because of me. . . . This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
How many repetitions of an obvious truth does one need? It’s almost as if God was anticipating the eucharistic nonsense that we have been burdened with since the 1520s, and made the truth of the matter so clear in Scripture that no one without a prior bias or constant brainwashing could possibly deny it. Yet they do . . . so our apologetic and exegetical task still remains.
It is not inquired whether our union with Christ is necessary for salvation (which we acknowledge and urge) . . .
Note how he rightfully holds that partaking of Holy Communion is “necessary for salvation.”
Christ’s body is proposed in the Supper to us and represented by the sacramental signs as dead and his blood as poured out of his veins (in which manner it is impossible for Christ’s body to be made present to us at this day corporeally and indistantly [adiastatōs], since he can die no more); . . .
This is simply not impossible at all for God to do. Nothing logically forbids it, for those who grant miracles, the supernatural, and God’s omnipotence. Turretin assumes it but doesn’t prove it. Again, he thinks like the Pauline “unspiritual man.” His God is “too small.” As a thought experiment, imagine that instead of becoming one man, Jesus, in the incarnation, God the Father decided to become 10,000 men? Who could tell Him that it was “impossible” to do that? It’s no more impossible than one incarnation was. It’s no more impossible than God subsisting in three Persons, yet being one God and not three. Yet Turretin wants us to believe that it’s “impossible for Christ’s body to be made present to us at this day corporeally.” Nonsense!
Christ commands us “to do this in remembrance of him” (Lk. 22:19). Now memory is only of things absent and past, not of those present; nor, if all things are said to be present to faith, is this understood of a local presence . . .
Actually, the words used suggest a timeless present. The one crucifixion of Jesus in history is supernaturally made present to us in the Mass. See:
From the passages in which the departure of Christ from the world is spoken of. (a) Where he predicts that he will go out of the world and will no longer be present here in his body: “Ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always” (Mt. 26:11); “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father” (Jn. 16:28); . . .
*
Being sacramentally present is a different category of presence, so that there is no conflict in His saying that He would be gone in the sense of what He was during His earthly life. “Apples and oranges” in other words . . .
*
“They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds” (Mt. 24:30).
*
Exactly! That’s obviously visible presence; whereas eucharistic Real Presence is discerned only by faith and revelation. This isn’t complicated. I contend that Protestants who deny the Real Presence don’t have enough faith. It’s a “miracle too far” for them. This is primarily a spiritual lack, as opposed to an intellectual one. Many of these same Protestants who deny the Real Presence, by the way, disbelieve in all miracles since the apostolic age (what’s known as cessationism). The Wikipedia article on the topic states,
The cessationist doctrine arose in the Reformed theology: initially in response to claims of Roman Catholic miracles. . . .
*
It was when these miracles in the Catholic Church were used as a polemic against the post-Reformation Protestant churches that John Calvin began to develop a doctrine of cessationism, and it was primarily in the Calvinist tradition that this doctrine was developed. . . .
*
The Roman Catholic Church and most other wings of Protestantism were never cessationist by doctrine.
In other words, disbelief in continuing miracles wasn’t based on the Bible (where, of course, it is never taught), but rather, upon anti-Catholic prejudice and polemics; not exactly an indisputable criterion of belief in anything. Sure enough, in the same volume 3 of the work I am critiquing, Turretin adopts cessationism: “miracles are accidents and extraordinary gifts which were given to the church only for a time, not always; for the establishment of Christianity, not for its continuance” (18.13.43; from an article on Turretin’s ecclesiology).
*
Obviously, if one is already hostile to miracles under false and unbiblical pretenses, then one will be disinclined to accept miracles at every Church gathering, which is what occurs in the Catholic Mass. So there is an inveterate false premise before we even begin this discussion. This is why one must always examine the underlying premises and presuppositions of one’s dialogical opponents. They determine everything else. It reminds me of Jesus’ remarks about “a foolish man who built his house upon the sand” (Mt 7:26), as opposed to building it on a “rock” (7:24).
*
From all these, an invincible argument is derived.
*
In fact, it isn’t “invincible” at all because it’s built upon false premises, or “sand” — as Jesus would say.
*
He who departed in body from the earth and left the world that he might betake himself to heaven where he is to remain until the restitution of all things; who is sought in vain on earth where he no longer is; and must be sought in heaven, where he sits at the right hand of God, cannot be said to be carnally present in the sacrament. . . . It is repugnant to the words of Christ, which speak of his departure and leaving the world, not only concerning the disappearance and hiddenness of his body. But how can he be said to leave the world and to be raised up into heaven, if he as yet remains perpetually on earth?
*
This doesn’t follow because he is again comparing apples and oranges. There are at least twenty major types of divine presence, that I can think of: ten involving physicality and ten in an immaterial sense:
3) God was “with” the victorious armies of the Israelites (Jud 6:16) and with holy men like Moses and Joshua.
4) God was present in sublime visual scenes, such as described by Isaiah, Daniel, and St. John (Is 6:1-7; Dan 7:1-10; Rev 1:12-16).
5) God was specially present in — even to the point of being equated with — the Angel of the Lord.
6) God indwells believers. The Bible says this interchangeably about all three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Once again, God is “in” physical matter (us).
7) We are continually working towards being united to God in the sense of theosis / divinization (2 Cor 3:18; Eph 4:15; 2 Pet 1:4).
12) God was present in theophanies in the Old Testament.
13) God became a man, Jesus, in the incarnation (Jesus’ 33 years or so of earthly life).
14) Jesus was present for forty days as the incarnate God the Son risen from the dead, with a resurrected body capable of walking through walls (Jn 20:19, 26).
15) Jesus will be physically present in His glorified post-Ascension state when He returns in the Second Coming.
16) Jesus is present sacramentally (a different sort of miraculous physicality) in the Holy Eucharist.
17) We’re mysteriously united to Jesus in His death and resurrection in baptism (Rom 6:3-8).
18) We’re united in a profound sense to Jesus’ death and resurrection on an ongoing basis (2 Cor 4:10; Phil 3:10; Gal 2:20).
19) St. Paul said that “in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” (Col 1:24) and “I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” (Gal 6:17).
20) Jesus is somehow connected to His Church, the Body of Christ; so much so that He told Paul that he was persecuting Him when he was persecuting the Church (Acts 9:4-5; 22:7-8; 26:14-15).
Yet a little later, Turretin wrote:
The union which exists between us and Christ is nowhere said to be corporeal, but spiritual and mystical, which can be brought about in no other way than by the Spirit and faith (1 Cor. 6:17; Eph. 3:17).
This is untrue, since #17-20 above (especially #19) refer to mysterious but literal corporeal aspects of our union with Jesus.
*
Much of theology involves rather fine distinctions. Turretin knew all of this (or should have, as a theologian). But he appears to either be unaware of or to ignore many of these necessary distinctions in direct proportion to how much he is hostile in an anti-Catholic sense, and hence he descends to being a prisoner of his own bias, leading to false premises and equally false conclusions drawn from them. This particular one isn’t rocket science. But Turretin only regards as relevant to this discussion, #13 and #15 of the types of presence and ignores the others, which — considered as a whole — highly suggest by analogy and variety that eucharistic Real Presence is altogether possible, if not plausible and likely and actual.
*
Christ in consoling the minds of his sad disciples ought to have used this distinction—that he would indeed visibly depart, but still would be invisibly with them by the presence of his body, to such a degree that he could be both received into their hands and taken into their mouths. But he employed far different means (to wit, the substitution of the Holy Spirit in place of his bodily presence, whom he promised to send that he might remain with them forever as his vicar).
John 6:56 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
So we see that in fact Jesus did say what Turretin said He ought to say if indeed the Real Presence and transubstantiation are true. Thus, according to Turretin, in this saying Jesus proved what Catholics have been saying all along. But sadly, Turretin and those who think like he does in effect act like those who heard this from Jesus:
John 6:60-61, 64, 66 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? . . . [64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. . . . [66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
Based on how Turretin argues, he likely would have taken that approach if he were alive when Jesus was (i.e., not having enough faith or submissive obedience when Jesus taught about the Eucharist and transubstantiation). But one hopes not.
*
Now what need was there of the invisible presence of the Holy Spirit if the flesh of Christ always remains invisibly?
*
He’s our Helper, of course, and we have plenty of moments (indeed, the vast majority of the time) when we are not partaking in Holy Communion. But Jesus and the Father indwell us, too, according to Scripture. If we are to become one with God (deification) and begin that process in this life, then Holy Communion is one profound way that we do that on an ongoing basis in this life.
*
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
Summary: Calvinist theologian François Turretin says transubstantiation is impossible and offers various and sundry weak arguments: all of which I shoot down from the Bible and logic.
François Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan-Italian Reformed scholastic theologian and renowned defender of the Calvinistic(Reformed) orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and was one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus (1675). He is generally considered to be the best Calvinist apologist besides John Calvin himself. His Institutes of Elenctic Theology (three volumes, Geneva, 1679–1685) used the scholastic method. “Elenctic” means “refuting an argument by proving the falsehood of its conclusion.” Turretin contended against the conflicting Christian perspectives of Catholicism and Arminianism. It was a popular textbook; notably at Princeton Theological Seminary, until it was replaced by Charles Hodge‘s Systematic Theology in the late 19th century. Turretin also greatly influenced the Puritans.
This is a reply to portions of a section of Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 3, 19th Topic: The Sacraments / 27th Question: Transubstantiation). I utilize the edition translated by George Musgrave Giger and edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: 1992 / 1994 / 1997; 2320 pages). It uses the KJV for Bible verses. I will use RSV unless otherwise indicated. All installments of this series of replies can be found on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, under the category, “Replies to Francois Turretin (1632-1687).” Turretin’s words will be in blue.
*****
In the Eucharist, is there an entire conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ; or are the bread and wine, in virtue of the words of consecration, truly transubstantiated into the very body and blood of Christ, the external species only of the bread and wine remaining? We deny against the Romanists[.]
Although from the discussion of the preceding question, the decision of this can easily be made (for if it is once certain and indubitable that the sacramental words are figurative and tropical, as has been proved, the dogma of transubstantiation falls by that very thing, being founded solely upon the literalness of the words . . .
It’s anything but“certain and indubitable that the sacramental words are figurative” as I submit that I demonstrated in my previous reply. Turretin is now proceeding by assuming a false and undemonstrated premise.
yet because our opponents are desperately in love with this figment (as their Helen) and fiercely contend for it (as if for their altars and firesides), the treatment of this controversy must not be omitted.
We’re “desperately in love with” whatever Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition teach us. As the Bible itself states: “The sum of thy word is truth” (Ps 119:160).
the question does not simply concern the presence of Christ in the Supper; for this belongs to another controversy which will be taken up after this. Rather the question concerns the presence of Christ effected by way of conversion. . . . the question concerns a change as to substance—whether a real conversion is made of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. . . . We deny it and maintain that the bread and wine, although they are changed as to use according to the institution of God, yet they always retain their own substance, and that no real change or conversion takes place in reference to them.
This is a good description of the competing positions.
First, as to the senses. What many senses properly disposed and furnished with all the requisites for action, uniformly always and everywhere testify—that is necessarily true. Now the senses with one accord (homothymadon) testify that after the consecration, the symbols are properly bread and wine, not body and blood. Therefore, this is necessarily true.
I already refuted this thinking last time, citing an article of mine from 2000:
The virgin birth, . . . cannot be observed or proven, and is the utter opposite of a demonstrable miracle, yet it is indeed a miracle of the most extraordinary sort. Likewise, in the atonement of Jesus the world sees a wretch of a beaten and tortured man being put to death on a cross. The Christian, on the other hand, sees there the great miracle of redemption and the means of the salvation of mankind – an unspeakably sublime miracle, yet who but those with the eyes of faith can see or believe it?
Many miracles in Christianity are of such a nature that they cannot be perceived by the senses alone. In other words, not all knowledge is empirical (of the senses). The incarnation itself — as another example — can in no way be established through the senses (by simply looking at Jesus if one had been alive during His time). How can one determine whether God is eternal through the senses? We can’t even comprehend eternity into the future, let alone infinitely extended back in time and before (or outside of) time itself. Yet all Christians including Turretin believe in that doctrine. Or we could talk about the Holy Trinity or many other doctrines.
Otherwise we would have to say that there is nothing certain in the nature of things and the testimony of all the senses would have to be condemned with the academicians (which the thing itself proclaims to be most absurd).
We need to do no such thing. There is nothing “anti-scientific” entailed in believing in transubstantiation. All we need to do is what I just did: note the obvious fact that not all knowledge is obtained through the senses. The Bible clearly teaches this: “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1). Even after appearing to Doubting Thomas and mercifully providing Him with empirical proof of His resurrection, Jesus went on to proclaim that “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (Jn 20:29).
In vain is it objected: (1) “The senses cannot give a judgment concerning mysteries, which are the object of faith, far surpassing the senses.”
Yes, I essentially did just assert that. Let’s see how Turretin deals with it.
For although it is certain that the senses cannot judge of spiritual things as such (which occur in the mysteries of faith and transcend the senses), it does not follow that they cannot be consulted about sensible, visible things (which can occur in the mysteries). Undoubtedly two classes of mysteries are especially to be distinguished here. The one, wholly removed from corporeal things and as to all their parts mysteries, concealing themselves from us and far transcending the sphere both of reason and of the senses. These we hold are the object of faith alone, not of reason or of the senses. They are to be judged by the revelation of the word alone, not by the decision of reason or the testimony of the senses. However, the other involved and connected with corporeal and sensible things (as the mystery of the incarnation, of the resurrection of Christ, and the various miracles brought by him), which have sensible things annexed to spiritual. Concerning the truth and certainty of these, the senses and reason can give their testimony. We maintain that the sacraments are such mysteries in which, accordingly, the senses of which they are the proper object are not to be excluded, but listened to.
I’m glad he brought up the incarnation. What sense can prove that Jesus was the incarnate God merely by looking at Him or touching Him? The incarnation has everything to do with matter, since God became man. But it’s not verified by eyesight or touch. Jesus looked, felt, and sounded like a man; no one but those possessing faith would know (from simply observing Him) that He was also God, an uncreated Person who had made everything upon which He stood. No blood test or any sort of scientific test could reveal that. The virgin birth is in the same category as well. It was a thing involving matter but it can’t be verified in an empirical sense. Even today, if we could hypothetically use science to observe how Jesus the man came into the world (through microscopic observation), we couldn’t determine by that method alone that this male child was God.
In my previous installment I noted how God appeared in the pillars of cloud and fire in the Old Testament. Clouds consist primarily of carbon dioxide, water vapor, oxygen and nitrogen. Yet God was somehow “in” them. How? How could one tell the difference between a regular old cloud or a fire and the ones that God was “in”? They couldn’t (by scientific/empirical criteria). And no one could today, either, if God did that again. The only difference is that God said he was in both, in particular circumstances when both formed a “pillar.” But that’s not physical proof. It’s revelation. And it is exactly the same, analogously, as what we have in the Eucharist (substance changing without the accidents or appearances changing).
God made a donkey talk to Balaam (Numbers 22:21-31: “the LORD opened the mouth of the ass”: 22:28). Now, how would one go about demonstrating a physical change in the donkey, which now enabled it to speak (whereas we normally assume that animals do not speak, and not in the language we understand)? Would a neurologist be able to examine the brain of the animal and figure out how it could speak; what change was in the brain compared to those of non-speaking donkeys? I doubt it. But Bible-believing Christians think this actually happened and that we can’t hyper-analyze and explain it through the usual scientific means of verification.
Here again there was no outward change (the “accidents” perceived by our senses remained the same), but a miracle occurred in which a donkey talked. In other words, it is analogous to the Eucharist.
It is no more rightly said, “The senses cannot judge in this matter because the reference is to an internal change in the substance of the bread, which does not strike the senses, because they stop with the external accidents.” This rests upon a false hypothesis—that the accidents are really distinguished from the substance and can be separated from it and subsist separately.
The latter state of affairs is true of the incarnation. Senses tell us that Jesus was an ordinary man. How can senses prove that He was God and man? They can’t, because that is determined and believed in spiritually and philosophically. No microscope can identify anything in Jesus’ body that would prove that He was also God come down to earth. Therefore, the accidents of Jesus’ body have characteristics distinct and separate from the reality that He was God in the flesh. The accidents show nothing whatsoever of His divinity.
Just as we couldn’t tell that Jesus was vastly, essentially different from an ordinary human being by senses alone, likewise, we can’t tell that what was bread and wine before the consecration have become the body and blood of Jesus after it. It’s not discerned by the senses but received by faith and revelation. Jesus’ body didn’t “look like God” just as the consecrated elements don’t look like God, but we believe that they are by an informed faith that isn’t opposed to science, but rather transcends its sphere of knowledge. Science can’t speak to it.
On the contrary, while it is certain that they are inseparable from the substance (nay, are really identified with it), whoever sees the accidents of a substance, by that very thing sees the substance itself, which can be seen in no other way than by its accidents.
Again, this is clearly not true concerning the incarnation, as just explained. By the same token, the consecrated elements that don’t look like God, either, judging by the evidence of our senses. Turretin argues like a pagan rationalist. He’s simply not thinking and analyzing deeply enough. His reasoning fails since it would “prove” that the incarnation is a falsehood. Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, it also fails by analogy in the case of the Eucharist.
Second, reason must be heard here, with which transubstantiation conflicts in many ways. Sound reason teaches that only one body occupies one place and cannot be at the same time in more places than one because it would be one and not one, standing apart from itself and exposed to various and contrary motions, which everyone sees to be absurd (asystaton).
Reason doesn’t disprove the supernatural and the miraculous. Again, he reasons like a pagan hyper-rationalist, as opposed to a Christian who believes any number of amazing things that go beyond the natural and the laws of science. Both reason and experience tell us that a physical body can’t go through walls, either. But Jesus did that, in His resurrected body (Jn 20:19, 26). In the same context, Jesus showed that He had a physical body: “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side” (Jn 20:27). He did the same thing in another post-resurrection appearance, to the two disciples walking to Emmaus:
Luke 24:36-43 As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them. [37] But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. [38] And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts? [39] See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.” [41] And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” [42] They gave him a piece of broiled fish, [43] and he took it and ate before them.
The point I’m making is that the risen Jesus had a body, but it had characteristics that normal bodies didn’t have: the ability to somehow “dematerialize” and go through walls (sort of like being “beamed up” in the TV show Star Trek). No one could have perceived that this was possible by putting their hand in the risen Jesus’ side or the wounds in His hands and feet. In other words, it’s another miracle regarding physical matter that can’t be discerned by our senses, just as transubstantiation is. Turretin contends that bodies can’t be in two places at one time. But we retort that — speaking of a strictly physical plane — neither can bodies go through walls; nor can a person raise Himself from the dead, as Jesus did (Jn 2:19-21; 10:17-18), or raise others from the dead, as He and His disciples both did.
Both things are supernatural. If one thing is possible, the other is entirely possible as well. It can’t be ruled out by either reason or the senses. It’s both possible and actual because God is God, and is omnipotent. But Turretin — not understanding all of this or consistently incorporating it into his thinking — problematically acts like the rebellious disciples and the unbelieving Jews in John 6, after Jesus said that bread and wine could become His body and blood:
John 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
John 6:60-61, 64, 66 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? . . . [64] . . . there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. . . . [66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
A body cannot be granted which does not have quantity and extension, since quantity and extension do not differ really from the material substance, but are identified with it.
In the purely natural world, this is true. But in the supernatural world, where bodies and other material things have extraordinary capabilities, Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist have characteristics that normal bodies don’t have. Miracles always entail going beyond the natural. It’s almost as if Turretin can’t or won’t make exceptions to the laws of nature, for miracles. All of a sudden he has no belief in miracles, when it comes to the Eucharist. But why should it be different from any other miracle? Donkeys can’t and don’t talk; yet one talked to Balaam; human beings have no power over whether it rains or not; yet Elijah did; etc., etc.
All these and many other monstrosities of the same kind (which we desist from enumerating) are not so much prodigies of nature, as most absurd and inconsistent (asystata) creations of the human imagination, bringing the Christian religion into disgrace with infidels. They are the monstrous consectaries of the dogma of transubstantiation, which right reason not only does not receive, but is constantly opposed to.
To the contrary, all of the aspects of the Holy Eucharist that Turretin enumerated are every bit as possible as all the other miracles that we see described in the Bible. Once the miraculous (anything outside of the laws of nature) is possible in the first place, then any and all “strange” scenarios are possible. Turretin arbitrarily sets apart the one miracle involved in transubstantiation and declares it “monstrous” and a “disgrace” but he does so only by thinking in a radically unbiblical, hyper-rationalistic, cynical and skeptical way.
The factuality or possibility of miracles or supernatural events aren’t determined on the basis of whether we personally like them or not. If we take that approach, we’re like the unbelieving Pharisees who opposed Jesus: “It is only by Be-el’zebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons” (Mt 12:24). Jesus’ response to their unbelief was to say, “He who is not with me is against me, . . . every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” (Mt 12:30-31). This was not merely a lack of ability to believe; but sinful unbelief, worthy of, ultimately, a sentence of hell. Turretin and those who think like him in this respect are treading very spiritually dangerous ground.
Although we do not deny that the mysteries of faith are above reason, still we do not think that they are contrary to it; so that if their truth cannot be proved from reason, still their credibility may be sufficiently established by faith.
We deny that transubstantiation is contrary to reason, and I have made arguments establishing that, and these need to be grappled with. But Protestants are exceedingly unwilling to do that, which is why I’m sitting here “debating” with a dead guy. That’s fine with me. Turretin is one of the best historic Protestant theologians. Yet we see that his arguments regarding transubstantiation are very weak, and scarcely even biblical or Christian in nature. They do, however, fit right in with the approach of the village atheist, who denies every miracle in the Bible or in life in general. But at least the atheist is consistent. He doesn’t arbitrarily choose which miracle he will reject, while accepting others, on no rational or consistent basis, other than (it seems to come down to) rejecting them simply because Catholics accept them; sort of a “guilt by association.”
Reason may be blind and corrupted, repugnant to revelation and rising up against it; or it may be sound and well constituted, consenting to it and subordinated to it. . . . grace does not destroy nature, but makes it perfect; nor does faith exclude, but supposes reason.
Very true!
Finally, some mysteries of faith are true and genuine, clearly revealed in the Scriptures; others are false and spurious, not the streams and rays of divine revelation, but the offspring of human ignorance and blindness. Although reason is not sufficient to demonstrate the latter, still she is sufficient to strip off their deceitfulness and falsity. We maintain that the figment of transubstantiation is such.
And I have provided many biblical arguments by analogy, and arguments from reason and logic, for why we believe it is a true and biblical doctrine. Let the reader choose who has the more plausible and cogent case!
What is said of natural being and of sacramental being could be admitted, if by sacramental being is meant the symbolic and significative being of the bread (inasmuch as it is the sacrament of the body of Christ), but not with regard to his natural body (concerning which we speak).
Turretin irrationally limits himself in his thinking, by assuming hyper-rationalism and disallowing (as if he has the prerogative to do so) the supernatural to extend to this subject. In “epistemological despair” he adopts symbolism and metaphor, rather than accept the truth of eucharistic realism. Again, he neglects to realize that Jesus’ “natural body” after He resurrected, was capable of going through walls, in opposition to the laws of nature. And even before that, Jesus raised Himself. How many dead bodies do we see rising up again, through their own power? He ascended to heaven by His own power as well.
I submit that those three things are just as strange and unexpected as Jesus entering into bread and wine and changing them into His body and blood. If one can accept the first three (as Turretin and Protestants do), I see no reason why they can’t accept the fourth thing: transubstantiation. So the question becomes: what determines if a miracle is “monstrous” or a “disgrace”? Turretin has not resolved that dilemma. He’s simply playing games with words and philosophical concepts and placing skeptical philosophy above faith.
For if the form (superficies) alone remains, how could Christ and Paul so often call it bread and the fruit of the vine?
In part, they speak phenomenologically, as Bible writers often do, and/or refer to the accidents or outward characteristics in those instances. But they simultaneously call what was bread and wine Jesus’ body and blood, after they are consecrated (Jesus does so repeatedly in John 6). They do both things, which is perfectly consistent with the Catholic position. I will treat this issue in more depth in my next installment.
We do not treat here of what God can do, but of what he wishes to do. The power of God is not the rule of our faith, but his will. For although all things are possible to God, he does not at once do whatever he is able, but only what he wishes.
Fair enough. The Catholic argues that God did indeed wish to do this, based on the relevant texts (the Last Supper, John 6, and Paul’s eucharistic passages). All taken together strongly support our view; so we argue. It’s a straightforward biblical perspective; whereas I contend that Turretin’s argument is hyper-rationalistic and skeptical and insufficiently biblical.
Omnipotence extends itself to all things possible, but not to those which are impossible; such as are those which imply a contradiction, which God can no more be said to be able to do than it be said that he is able to lie and sin. Nor are these marks of power, but of a defect and imperfection, which God not only cannot do, but which he cannot even will to do, because they are contrary to his wisdom, holiness and truth and repugnant to the laws established by him in nature.
There is no inherent contradiction in God changing bread and wine into His body and blood. It’s odd, strange, and not predictable, but not contradictory. God can certainly do this. He’s not limited by all of these laws of matter, that Turretin tries so hard to enlist as alleged disproofs of this miracle, simply because he doesn’t like eucharistic realism. Turretin almost seems to say that God is constrained by the very laws of nature that He created. He’s not at all, of course. Every miracle proves this. I agree with St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, a truly towering intellect, whom few would accuse of being unreasonable, gullible, or philosophically naive, who commented on this issue as follows:
People say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is difficult to believe . . . It is difficult, impossible to imagine, I grant – but how is it difficult to believe? . . . For myself, I cannot, indeed prove it, I cannot tell how it is; but I say, ‘ Why should it not be? What’s to hinder it? What do I know of substance or matter? Just as much as the greatest philosophers, and that is nothing at all.’ (Apologia pro vita Sua, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1956; originally 1864; 318: part 7: “General Answer to Mr. Kingsley”)
Although we confess that God can work above the order of nature, still we deny that his omnipotence extends to those things which are contrary to nature and the order established in it, because he cannot change the natures of things and overturn the order settled by himself.
This is sheer nonsense. It is as I suspected: Turretin turns God into a caricature of Himself; a sort of deist “god” rather than the sovereign Master of the universe. Again, every miracle makes mincemeat of this self-contradictory gibberish.
Although God can make accidents with their subjects, it does not follow in like manner that he can also produce the former without the latter; not from a lack of power, but from the incompossiblity (incompossibilitate) of the thing.
It’s not impossible at all! Turretin deludes himself. Here are some things that are actually impossible, even for God: He can’t make Himself exist and not exist at the same time or to be simultaneously eternal and not eternal. He can’t make a circle a square. He can’t simultaneously subsist in Four Divine Persons and Three, or create a world in which 2+2=4 and also equals 5. And (here’s the famous one), He can’t make a rock so big that He can’t lift it, because that’s a logical self-contradiction.
All of those things are impossible for even an omnipotent being to do. But transubstantiation is not of the same nature as all of these things, and is entirely possible and not self-contradictory. Turretin builds his entire case upon the laws of nature, but he himself admits that “God can work above the order of nature.” Yes! And He does so in transubstantiation. He states a true principle, but then proceeds to ignore it and make an “exception” based on nothing solid or incontrovertible at all. It’s equally extraordinary and distressing to behold a brilliant Christian mind engage in such tortuous thinking and skeptical illogic.
But the mind cannot conceive an accident which is without its subject.
Sure it can. On what basis does he make this claim? We can conceive of it just as we do in the case of a cloud or fire having the usual properties that they do, while containing God within them, which the Old Testament states was the case. How could we know that God was there, except that He revealed that He was by revelation or divine utterance? To us it’s just a cloud and fire, if we only employ our senses. It’s the same with transubstantiation. God said that He is now present after the consecration, whereas to us it looks and tastes and feels like bread and wine. But we believe it isn’t based on God’s revelation, the Bible. But Turretin, oddly enough, thinks like the biblical “carnal” or “unspiritual” man, that Paul describes:
1 Corinthians 2:7, 10-14, 16 . . . we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. . . . [10] God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. [11] For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. [13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. [14] The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. . . . [16] “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
Summary: Calvinist theologian François Turretin contended that transubstantiation is “monstrous” & impossible to believe. I offer numerous opposing biblical analogical & logical arguments.
Does a traditional literal reading of “this is my body” entail “a thousand absurdities and contradictions”? The book of Job is instructive
Photo credit: The Last Supper, by Carl Bloch (1834-1890) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Vs. Turretin #11: Eucharist, Pt. 1
François Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan-Italian Reformed scholastic theologian and renowned defender of the Calvinistic(Reformed) orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and was one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus (1675). He is generally considered to be the best Calvinist apologist besides John Calvin himself. His Institutes of Elenctic Theology (three volumes, Geneva, 1679–1685) used the scholastic method. “Elenctic” means “refuting an argument by proving the falsehood of its conclusion.” Turretin contended against the conflicting Christian perspectives of Catholicism and Arminianism. It was a popular textbook; notably at Princeton Theological Seminary, until it was replaced by Charles Hodge‘s Systematic Theology in the late 19th century. Turretin also greatly influenced the Puritans.
This is a reply to portions of a section of Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 3, 19th Topic: The Sacraments / 26th Question: The Meaning of the Sacramental Words). I utilize the edition translated by George Musgrave Giger and edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: 1992 / 1994 / 1997; 2320 pages). It uses the KJV for Bible verses. I will use RSV unless otherwise indicated. All installments of this series of replies can be found on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, under the category, “Replies to Francois Turretin (1632-1687).” Turretin’s words will be in blue.
*****
Are the words of the Supper to be understood properly and literally . . . or figuratively and sacramentally? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Romanists and Lutherans. [italicized in the original]
This is the debate in a nutshell. Does one take the words at face value (literally) or hold that they are metaphorical and symbolic only? The Church fathers, the medieval theologians, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and at least some “high” Anglicans take them literally, making this by far the majority position in historical and current Christianity.
The body of Christ reclined at the table in the first Supper, so therefore it could not have been handed to the disciples; rather the bread which was set before them on the table was handed to them. . . .
The disciples . . . could not have given to these words any other sense than the tropical. (1) They saw at the same time the body of the Lord reclining at the table and the bread which he took, as things separated from each other, both as to nature and as to place, so that they must have conceived the most diverse ideas concerning them. . . .
The sixth class is drawn from the rules of discourse, which in this argument do not allow a proper sense, but necessarily demand a figurative. The first is: “When a literal interpretation involves an absurdity and a contradiction, we must necessarily have recourse to the figurative sense.” Since the human intellect cannot comprehend how a thing can be and not be at the same time, it is forced to recur to a figure. Now it is evident that the sacramental words, taken properly and literally . . . involve a thousand absurdities and contradictions . . .
None of this is successful argumentation, because 1) it limits God in His omniscience and omnipotence, and 2) it’s unbiblical. Broadly speaking, God is everywhere and simultaneously can be said to be “in” certain things. God becoming a man in the incarnation is the most amazing manifestation of His taking on physical properties (God the Father and God the Holy Spirit being immaterial spirits). For example, the Bible asserts the equation of God (in some very real sense) with the pillars of cloud and of fire:
Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire . . .
Exodus 14:24 And in the morning watch the LORD in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down upon the host of the Egyptians . . .
Exodus 33:9 When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses.
Numbers 12:5 And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the tent, and called Aaron and Miriam . . .
Numbers 14:14 . . . thou goest before them, in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night.
Deuteronomy 31:15 And the LORD appeared in the tent in a pillar of cloud . . .
Psalm 99:7 He spoke to them in the pillar of cloud . . .
Lest Turretin counter that this is merely symbolic, too, I submit this passage:
Exodus 33:10 And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door.
Only God can be worshiped; hence God truly was in the cloud. If He wasn’t, this act would have been rank idolatry (worship of mere matter). But the inspired text gives no indication whatsoever that it was improper. Likewise, God was in the burning bush in a very special way:
Exodus 3:4-6, 16 . . . God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here am I.” [5] Then he said, “Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” [6] And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. . . . [16] “Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me’ . . . “
God was also specially present in the tabernacle and temple, in the Holy of Holies, and specifically between the cherubim on top of the ark of the covenant. Yet we are to believe that Jesus (Who is God) can’t will to enter — and actually enter — into what was formerly bread and wine and become substantially, bodily present in a miraculous way? To deny this is mere rationalistic special pleading, that lacks faith in God and belief in His omnipotent power.
If God could enter into a cloud or a fire, or in the holiest spaces in the ark, tabernacle, and temple, then He can do this by the same token, and the literal reading of the text is the fulfillment of it. Turretin put rationalistic philosophy in a higher place in this instance of his reasoning, than the Christian faith, and specifically faith in the supernatural.
Jesus was sovereign over the laws of nature and nature (matter) itself. He calmed a violent storm at sea (Mt 8:24-27). After His resurrection (when He had a body), Jesus passed through walls (Jn 20:19, 26). He raised the dead and in fact raised Himself (Jn 2:19-21; 10:17-18) because He had “the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself” (Phil 3:21) and because “in him all things hold together” (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3). He was omnipotent. Even some of Jesus’ followers had rather extraordinary and unusual miraculous gifts. Philip bilocated:
Acts 8:39-30 . . . the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. [40] But Philip was found at Azo’tus, . . .
Philip was in Gaza with the Ethiopian eunuch when he was “caught up”. Then he appeared in Azotus, which is modern-day Ashdod: some 27 kilometers or about 17 miles from the northernmost point of Gaza. So a created human being could do that, by God’s power (and the prophet Elijah could stop rain for 3 1/2 years: Jas 5:16-18), but Jesus, Who is the omnipotent God, supposedly cannot do whatever amazing thing He desires to do? Such a notion is ludicrous and thoroughly anti-biblical. Turretin might deny that the ascended Jesus was omnipresent, but this is untrue as well:
Matthew 18:20 “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
Matthew 28:20 “. . . lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
Ephesians 1:22-23 . . . the church, [23] which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.
Colossians 3:11 . . . Christ is all, and in all.
Note that the Matthew 18 passage records Jesus’ words before He was resurrected or ascended, and He was already speaking in the present tense of an extraordinary trait akin to or consistent with omnipresence. Therefore, He certainly could have been sacramentally present in the former bread and wine even at the Last Supper, and this interpretation is at least as plausible as the merely symbolic one. If the objection is that He can be present spiritually or immaterially, but not physically, we reply that Paul equated the Church (an actual thing) with Jesus’ “body” in Ephesians 1:22-23 above.
Moreover, the risen, ascended, and glorified Jesus told the just-about-to-be-converted Paul, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:5; cf. 22:7-8; 26:14-15). But the New Testament elsewhere — including his own words — states that Paul persecuted “the church” (Acts 8:1-3; 22:4; 26:9-11), which Paul later agreed was Jesus Himself (1 Tim 1:13). If Jesus, then, can equate Himself — including physically — with the “body of Christ”: the Church (and Paul follows suit), then by the same token, He can equate Himself with what was bread and wine; and He does so not only at the Last Supper, but repeatedly in John 6. St. Paul is every bit as literal as Jesus, since he wrote, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27).
He took bread from the table, blessed, broke and gave it to his disciples. He did and said nothing of this about his own body.
Really?:
Matthew 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” (cf. Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24)
They had often heard the Lord speaking figuratively (who had accustomed them by the frequency of his parables to this mode of speaking), which could be understood only tropically and by analogy (as in Mt. 13 and elsewhere).
Again, this no more has to be interpreted non-literally, than the pillars of cloud and fire and the burning bush do. They were literally outward physical manifestations of the presence of God (clouds are material and are composed of water); therefore, by analogy, the accidents or appearance of bread and wine can do the same thing. Granted, this takes things even further into the supernatural realm, but this is the omnipotent God, Who can do anything that is possible to do.
The time in which they lived, the business about which they were engaged, was mystical and full of various figures. For in the sacrament of the Passover, which Christ was celebrating, this tropical locution was constantly occurring.
That’s a very poor and unfortunate example for Turretin to use in his argument, since Jesus was literally the Passover lamb (Jn 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Cor 5:7: “Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed”; 1 Pet 1:19; Rev 5:6, 12; 12:11; many other NT usages of “lamb” referring to Jesus). Passover lambs were real lambs with real blood, and Jesus’ crucifixion and shedding of blood on our behalf (Rom 3:25; 5:9; Eph 1:7; 2:13; Heb 9:14; 10:19; 1 Pet 1:19; 1 Jn 1:7; Rev 1:5) were quite real and sacrificial and sufficient to save the entire human race.
Nay, unless this had come into their minds that the bread was figuratively called a body, how could they have helped being disturbed by a thing so monstrous? They, who in the least difficulties were perplexed, who dispute among themselves how Christ was about to go to the Father; and moved the question how he would go out of the world; who understood nothing of what he had said concerning his heavenly Father, how could they have been so ready to believe what all reason repudiates—that Christ was reclining at the table in their sight and that he was invisibly included under the bread?
They didn’t have to fully understand; at this point they were not yet indwelt with the Holy Spirit, as all Christian believers are. But they were called to accept His mysterious word because He was God and had proven that He was to them over and over with signs and various teachings. What they needed to do, therefore, was to believe in faith. This is precisely what they did do as described in John 6, after other “disciples” objected to Jesus’ “hard saying” that they claimed no one could “listen” to (Jn 6:60) and “did not believe” (6:64), with the result being that they “drew back and no longer went about with him” (6:66) because He taught the Real Presence. But St. Peter, still faithful, said:
John 6:68-69 . . . “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; [69] and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
They did what Job did in the face of utter mystery and confusion: they believed God — though confused and perplexed — because He was God. God drives home this point over and over in that book:
Job 9:3, 8-12 If one wished to contend with him, one could not answer him once in a thousand times. . . . [8] who alone stretched out the heavens, and trampled the waves of the sea; [9] who made the Bear and Orion, the Plei’ades and the chambers of the south; [10] who does great things beyond understanding, and marvelous things without number. [11] Lo, he passes by me, and I see him not; he moves on, but I do not perceive him. [12] Behold, he snatches away; who can hinder him? Who will say to him, ‘What doest thou’?
Job 38:1-2, 4-5 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind: [2] “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? . . . [4] “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. [5] Who determined its measurements — surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:31-33 “Can you bind the chains of the Plei’ades, or loose the cords of Orion? [32] Can you lead forth the Maz’zaroth in their season, or can you guide the Bear with its children? [33] Do you know the ordinances of the heavens? Can you establish their rule on the earth?
Job 40:1-2 And the LORD said to Job: [2] “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.”
Job 42:1-3, 6 Then Job answered the LORD: [2] “I know that thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of thine can be thwarted. [3] ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. . . . [6] therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”
I wrote in my cover story in Patrick Madrid’s Envoy Magazine, Jan/Feb 2000 issue, entitled, “Is This God?”:
The Eucharist was intended by God as a different kind of miracle from the outset, requiring more profound faith, as opposed to the “proof” of tangible, empirical miracles. But in this it was certainly not unique among Christian doctrines and traditional beliefs – many fully shared by our Protestant brethren. The Virgin Birth, for example, cannot be observed or proven, and is the utter opposite of a demonstrable miracle, yet it is indeed a miracle of the most extraordinary sort.
Likewise, in the Atonement of Jesus the world sees a wretch of a beaten and tortured man being put to death on a cross. The Christian, on the other hand, sees there the great miracle of Redemption and the means of the salvation of mankind – an unspeakably sublime miracle, yet who but those with the eyes of faith can see or believe it? In fact, the disciples (with the possible exception of St. John, the only one present) didn’t even know what was happening at the time. . . .
Many Christian beliefs require a great deal of faith, even relatively “blind” faith. Protestants manage to believe in a number of such doctrines (such as the Trinity, God’s eternal existence, omnipotence, angels, the power of prayer, instantaneous justification, the Second Coming, etc.). Why should the Real Presence be singled out for excessive skepticism and unchecked rationalism? . . .
This pervasive anti-eucharistic bias smacks of an analogy to the Jewish and Muslim belief that the Incarnation as an unthinkable (impossible?) task for God to undertake. They view the Incarnation in the same way as the majority of Protestants regard the Eucharist. For them God wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t become a man. For evangelicals God wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t become substantially, sacramentally present under the outward forms of bread and wine. I think the dynamic is the same. “Coulda woulda shoulda” theology is not biblical theology. Every Christian exercises faith in things which are very difficult to grasp with the natural mind, because they are revealed to be true by God in the Bible. I have attempted to show why I think Protestants inconsistently require a higher criterion of “proof” where the Holy Eucharist is concerned.
Turretin, following Calvin and Zwingli, wants to play the role of the unbelieving and rebellious disciples and of Job’s miserable “comforters.” He finds it too difficult to believe that God could or would become bodily present in what was bread and wine. That unbelief and denial of the supernatural and God’s omnipotence and the plain words of Jesus (however incomprehensible they may have been at first hearing) are, I respectfully submit, the things that are truly “monstrous” and what bring about “a thousand absurdities and contradictions.”
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*
Photo credit:The Last Supper, by Carl Bloch (1834-1890) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Summary: Renowned Calvinist theologian François Turretin contended that Jesus’ words “This is my body” must necessarily be figuratively interpreted. But I show why this miserably fails.
Photo credit: self-designed cover of my self-published book (2012)
Henry R. Percival, D.D. (1854-1903) was a prominent American Episcopal priest and author of many books. This is a reply to a few portions of his book, The Invocation of Saints Treated Theologically and Historically (London and New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1896). As a High Church Anglican, he substantially agrees with us on this general topic. So I am only quibbling with him over a few things. His words will be in blue. I use RSV for Scripture citations.
*****
In the year 1549 it was evidently the mind of those who were responsible for the compiling and translating of the Prayer-book, that the only way to be sure of avoiding corruption, and the superstition consequent thereupon, was by omitting all invocations whatever. (pp. 18-19)
This is far too often the “solution” of Protestantism: if anything is at all corrupted, get rid of the whole thing; in other words, “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” That’s no solution at all; it’s not even the vaunted “reform.” It has led to the truncated, bare minimum, hollowed-out Christianity Lite that is many Protestant denominations today: which is the flip side difficulty at the other extreme on the spectrum of corruption in practice of good things.
First, let me clearly state that the Roman Church has shown herself most anxious to remove this ” Romish doctrine,” and to restore the practice to its first purity. In the Twenty-fifth Session of the Council of Trent, holden in 1563 — that is, eleven years after the setting forth of this Article in its first form, and one year after its adoption in its present form (a fact which shows that the article cannot possibly be looked upon as drawn up to condemn the decree of Trent, since at that time it as yet had no existence), the Fathers decreed as follows : —
Moreover, let every superstition in connection with invoking the saints be done away. Let all base questionings be cut off. Finally, let all lasciviousness be avoided (Dec De Purgatorio).
It is, then, not denied by the Church of Rome that, at the time of the Reformation, there were abuses with regard to the invocation of saints which needed reformation, and we have the contemporaneous record of some of these. (pp. 36-37)
There are always abuses and lack of understanding among the more ignorant portions of any religious group whatever. All groups — including Catholicism — reform themselves constantly — in terms of practice ‘on the ground” — or should, if they don’t. The problem we usually encounter in Protestant polemics against Catholicism, however, is that corruptions in Catholic practice are compared to the most sophisticated teachings of Protestants, such as Calvin or Chemnitz: which is a glaring double standard. If we’re going to talk about corruptions, then it should be applied across the board; not only to Catholics.
But by and large, to have a substantive discussion, we can only objectively analyze official proclamations of doctrine. The proper comparison is between Catholic and Protestant official doctrines and confessions. Percival himself cites Trent and other magisterial sources, as well as Doctors of the Church like Aquinas and Bellarmine. So he doesn’t fall into this silly practice.
A prevalent ” Romish doctrine ” seems to have been that the saints were given by God particular departments to have under their special care. To this we find allusion in the “Articles about Religion, set out by the Convocation” in the year 1 536, where we read that —
it is very laudable to pray to saints in heaven everlastingly-living, whose charity is ever permanent, to be intercessors and to pray for us and with us unto Almighty God. … So that it be done without any vain superstition as to think that any saint is more merciful or will hear us sooner than Christ, or that any saint doth serve for one thing more than other, or is patron of the same. (pp. 37-38)
First of all, the Catholic Church never taught that “any saint is more merciful or will hear us sooner than Christ”. That’s simply an insulting, groundless, gratuitous caricature. But as for patron saints, I fail to see the slightest objection to it, let alone harm. It’s simply common sense and “division of labor”: so to speak. St. Paul discusses these sorts of differential tasks when describing the function of the Body of Christ:
1 Corinthians 12:4-11, 17-18 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; [5] and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; [6] and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one. [7] To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. [8] To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, [9] to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, [10] to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. [11] All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. . . . [17] If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? [18] But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. (cf. 12: 12-16, 19-30)
But is it true that supposedly no one can “specialize” in heaven, with regard to intercession? I don’t see any biblical case against it, but I can think of biblical analogies to it. I wrote in an article about the intercession of saints:
The Bible clearly teaches that different people have different levels of grace (Acts 4:33; 2 Cor 8:7; Eph 4:7; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 3:18). From this it follows, it seems to me, that some might specialize in certain areas more so than others, according to different parts of the Body of Christ (there is much Pauline teaching on that). . . . an ironclad argument against it from Scripture is rarely made.
The fact remains that “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16). In the larger context of that passage, James states:
James 5:17-18 Eli’jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. [18] Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.
Would it not follow, then, that Elijah seemed to have a particular influence over weather? Therefore, why couldn’t someone ask him to pray to God about the weather, rather than someone else, since he had this record of asking for rain to cease, and it did for three and-a-half years? So he became, in effect, the “patron saint of meteorological petitions.”
We do roughly the same in this life with friends, on the level of empathy. So, for example, if a woman has difficulty with miscarriage or difficult pregnancies or deliveries, she might go to a woman who has experienced the same thing and ask her to pray to God for her.
I don’t see any intrinsic difficulty here.
Percival cites “Benedictine editors” who sum up a homily of St. John Chrysostom as, “We reap more profit from our own prayers than from those which are offered by others for us.” Percival then opines, “This is a fair summing up of the whole discussion of the saint upon the subject . . .” (p. 46)
The Catholic Church never forbade anyone to pray directly to God. That’s a non-issue. But is there a sense in which asking others to pray for us to God (to intercede) is a better, more efficient way of praying to God? According to the Bible, this is absolutely possible and in many cases preferred. The Catholic position is that it’s best, and always possible, to “go straight to God” in prayer, unless there happens to be a person more righteous than we are in the immediate vicinity, who is willing to make the same prayer request. Then the Bible — not merely the Catholic Church — recommends that we ask them to intercede, rather than asking God directly. If someone wants to be biblical and to follow the biblical model of prayer and intercession, it would include this practice.
The Bible states that “the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer” (1 Pet 3:12), and “When the righteous cry for help, the LORD hears” (Ps 34:17), and “the prayer of the upright is his delight” (Prov 15:8), and “he hears the prayer of the righteous” (Prov 15:29), and “we receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him” (1 Jn 3:22), and “If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened” (Ps 66:18; cf. 66:19-20).
Having established this principle of scriptural prayer, we see how it is carried out in the case of very holy people. God told Abimelech that Abraham would pray for him, so he could live, “for” Abraham was “a prophet” (Gen 20:6-7). “All Israel” (1 Sam 12:1) “said to Samuel [the prophet], ‘Pray for your servants to the LORD your God, that we may not die’. . .” (1 Sam 12:19). God told Job’s “friends”: “my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly” (Job 42:8).
Why did God listen to Job’s prayers? It’s because God Himself stated that “there is none like” Job “on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil” (Job 1:8). King Zedekiah asked the holy prophet Jeremiah to pray for him and the country (Jer 37:3; cf. 42:2: “[they] said to Jeremiah the prophet, ‘Let our supplication come before you, and pray to the LORD your God for us’ “).
If we go to a more righteous or holy person and ask them to pray for x, then x is far more likely to happen than if we go to God directly (because we are less righteous). Therefore, it’s more “efficient” and “better” to do this in these instances rather than go directly to God. Righteous people know God’s will better than those who are not following God with a whole heart, with all their might. Therefore, their prayers are more effective. And it’s all based on explicit biblical teaching and examples. The Bible refers to preeminent, effective prayer warriors and valiant intercessors like Moses (Ex 32:30; Num 11:1-2; 14:11-13, 19-20; 21:6-8; Dt 9:18-19; 10:10), Samuel (1 Sam 7:8; 12:18-19), Elisha (2 Ki 6:18), Elijah (James 5:17-18), and King Hezekiah ( 2 Chr 30:18-20).
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
Summary: I reply to a few points of a book by Anglican Henry R. Percival (1854-1903) regarding the notion of patron saints and asking saints’ intercession rather than praying directly to God.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In