Reply to Melanchthon: Justification #2: Good Works 1

Last updated on: September 5, 2024 at 12:49 pm By Dave Armstrong

“Working Together” with God / Human Striving & Merit / Tridentine Soteriology / David’s & Paul’s Godly “Boasting” / Regenerate Sinners / Romans 7 & 8 & Sin / God is Pleased by Our Meritorious Acts / Colossians 1:28: Imputed Justification?

Photo credit: Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560): leader of Lutheranism after Luther’s death; 1532 portrait by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) was the founder of Protestantism: Martin Luther’s best friend, co-reformer, and successor as the leader of Lutheranism. Encyclopaedia Britannica (“Philipp Melanchthon“) states that “Melanchthon . . . in 1521 published the Loci communes rerum theologicarum (‘Theological Commonplaces’), the first systematic treatment of Reformation thought.” It’s considered the initiatory work in the Lutheran scholastic tradition. Modified editions appeared in 1535, 1543 and 1559.

Martin Luther wrote, “No better book has been written after the Holy Scriptures than Philip’s. He expresses himself more concisely than I do when he argues and instructs. I’m garrulous and more rhetorical” (Table-Talk, 1543; in Luther’s Works, Vol. 54, 439-440). Many think that this volume was the reason why Luther never wrote his own work of systematic theology. Melanchthon at length departed from Luther in some ways; most notably, in his denial of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, by the time of the 1543 edition, and on the question of free will.

In this series of replies, I will be utilizing the 1992 translation of the 1543 Latin version (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House), by J. A. O. Preuss (1920-1994), who was a pastor, theologian, and the president of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) from 1969 to 1981. He wrote in the Introduction:

Luther, who had some violent disagreements with him, never criticized him publicly and never really broke with him. In fact, the verdict of history is that Luther was kinder to Melanchthon than Melanchthon was to Luther. . . . Most Lutherans in America up to the present time have been critical of him, including Schmauck, Neve, Bente, Pelikan, and many others, although that attitude is changing somewhat. (p. 7)

*

Melanchthon was a prodigy. He entered Heidelberg University at twelve and received his bachelor’s degree at 14. He moved on to Tubingen, where he earned the master’s degree at 17, . . . He never received the doctorate and was never ordained into the ministry. He never preached from the pulpit, although he had much to do with the development of the study of oratory and homiletics. He received an appointment to teach at the newly established University of Wittenberg in 1518. . . . He remained at Wittenberg the rest of his life . . . differences [with Luther] appear as early as 1530, . . . and become more evident as the years roll on. (p. 8)

See also my introductory post for this series on Facebook, which highlights his historically brand-new position of imputed justification (sola fide). For other installments of this series, see my Lutheranism web page, second section: “Replies to Philip Melanchthon’s Loci Communes.” Melanchthon’s words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.

***

I want to say clearly and plainly that our obedience, that is, the righteousness of a good conscience or of the good works which God has commanded us, must necessarily follow our reconciliation. (p. 97)

That’s what everyone agrees on: the true regenerated Christian with authentic faith must do grace-enabled good works. The controversy comes over whether they are meritorious, and whether sanctification is an organic part of justification, rather than an abstractly separate category.

Then there is comfort in the fact that he says that God has prepared before hand these good works in the church [Eph 2:10], just as He prepared beforehand in Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others the marvelous works through which He both calls, governs, and preserves His church; and as He says in another place, “Strengthen, O God, that which You have wrought in us,” Ps. 68[:28]. (p. 97)

Exactly. They are not exclusively our works. They are caused by God’s grace and in His will. But they are also ours at the same time. It’s the paradoxical, biblical “both/and” rather than “either/or”:

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

*

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are God’s fellow workers . . .

*

2 Corinthians 6:1 Working together with him, . . .

*

Philippians 2:13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

*

Colossians 1:29 . . . I toil, striving with all the energy which he mightily inspires within me.

*

Mark 16:20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them . . .

The adversaries want to appear to be treating the doctrine of works as something very important, although they actually are speaking only of external hypocrisy or human ceremonies. But they do not know the works of the First Table and they bury the real source of good works. They say nothing about faith which is trust in the mercy and the free reconciliation of God, nor of the necessity of praying to Him in all situations. And when this faith is taken away then doubt prevails which either despises God or flees His wrath and does not call upon Him. (p. 97)

Now (after initial encouraging agreement) we see the usual inane caricatures of Catholicism. If one feels compelled to lie about one’s theological opponents in order to set forth a supposedly superior, more biblical theology, something is surely awry. It bespeaks a lack of confidence in one’s own beliefs. I, on the other hand, don’t have to misrepresent and distort Melanchthon’s Lutheran beliefs. I have no need or desire whatsoever to do that: with him or anyone else.

I want my readers to know exactly what others believe, and why they do. Towards that end, I present their good-faith, sincerely held positions in their own words and then proceed to show why I believe they are in error, based on Holy Scripture. But Melanchthon uses the age-old method of Protestant polemics against Catholicism (something Luther was a “master” at): present a straw man of what we supposedly believe in his words rather than actually citing a Catholic source and letting us speak for ourselves.

I have often said that we must not indulge in the idle human notion that we can govern our outward behavior by human diligence and human powers . . . (p. 98)

Really? We can and should do so after we are regenerated and justified initially (thus working with God, per the above passages):

Philippians 2:12 . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

*

1 Timothy 5:22 . . . keep yourself pure.

*

2 Timothy 2:15, 21 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, . . . [21] If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work.

*

2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;

*

Jude 20-21 But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; [21] keep yourselves in the love of God;

It is evident that godly minds are tormented and also hopeful that their obedience may be pleasing to God, but in this terrible weakness of ours they see that our obedience is crippled, impeded, imperfect, corrupt, . . . (p. 99)

Sometimes it is (we being fallen human beings who fail even after regeneration); most times it is not, if we are being obedient (the very act of which indicates a preceding grace). The seven representative passages above show not the slightest hint of the efforts and works done being “crippled, impeded, imperfect, corrupt.” That’s simply Protestant “faith alone”: being improperly superimposed onto the Bible. I submit that Melanchthon’s and Protestants’ prior presuppositions or worldview trump what the Bible actually teaches (which I think I am showing as I move along).

The hypocrites think that they do satisfy the Law, that they are righteous, that is, that they have been accepted by God because of their own worthiness or their fulfillment of the Law, as the Pharisee says in Luke 18:9-12. (p. 99)

That’s supposedly us dumb, deluded Catholics, of course! This is the old tired caricature of Catholicism as works-salvation (a thing we had roundly condemned 1100 years before Melanchthon): equating it with the Pharisees and Judaizers. The silliness and wrongheadedness of this charge — in terms of what Catholics actually teach and believe and seek to practice — is seen in the Decree on Justification from the Council of Trent, from its Sixth Session on 13 January 1547: less than four years after the third edition of Loci Communes that I am critiquing, was published, and thirteen years before Melanchthon died:

CHAPTER I. On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

Thus we see that actual magisterial Church teaching, reiterated and promulgated during Melanchthon’s lifetime, is the polar opposite of his ridiculous caricature (that is still widely used to this day). The first three canons on justification from the same document, are so in line with Protestant teaching, that John Calvin, in his work, Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote (21 November 1547) — which I wrote about it in one article –, completely agreed with them and offered no further comment (writing, “To Canons 1, 2, and 3:, I say, Amen.”):

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

Here are some more good ones that any Protestant ought to readily agree with:

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

CHAPTER V. On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.

. . . the beginning of the said justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God through Jesus Christ . . . without any merits existing on their parts . . . yet is he not able, by his own free-will, without the grace of God, to move himself into justice in His sight . . .

CHAPTER VIII. In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.

. . . none of those things which precede justification — whether faith or works — merit the grace itself of justification. For if it be a grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

There are always people like this who admire their own virtues, who give long tributes to their own wisdom and righteousness, especially in secondary matters which are showy, which they think they can govern by their own ideas and which they choose to accept as the divinely given fruits of their own virtues and diligence, . . . (p. 99)

This is the picture which many hypocrites project, and there are not a few who are like this, self-confident, pleased with them selves because of their gifts, applauding their own wisdom, . . . (p. 100)

I guess he is talking about David and Paul, too:

1 Samuel 26:23 [David] The LORD rewards every man for his righteousness and his faithfulness; . . .

2 Samuel 22:21-25 [David] The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me. [22] For I have kept the ways of the LORD, and have not wickedly departed from my God.

Romans 15:17 . . . In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God.

2 Timothy 4:6-8 For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. [7] I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. [8] Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, . . .

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,800+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

In fact, St. Paul was in several instances in his letters, given to long glowing descriptions of his own [God-enabled] righteous works and sanctity (I guess Melanchthon would consign him to the proud, arrogant, Pharisee-types, too, huh?):

2 Corinthians 11:5-30 I think that I am not in the least inferior to these superlative apostles. [6] Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not in knowledge; in every way we have made this plain to you in all things. [7] Did I commit a sin in abasing myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God’s gospel without cost to you? [8] I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. [9] And when I was with you and was in want, I did not burden any one, for my needs were supplied by the brethren who came from Macedo’nia. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way. [10] As the truth of Christ is in me, this boast of mine shall not be silenced in the regions of Acha’ia. [11] And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do! [12] And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. [13] For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. [14] And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. [15] So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. [16] I repeat, let no one think me foolish; but even if you do, accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast a little. [17] (What I am saying I say not with the Lord’s authority but as a fool, in this boastful confidence; [18] since many boast of worldly things, I too will boast.) [19] For you gladly bear with fools, being wise yourselves! [20] For you bear it if a man makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face. [21] To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that! But whatever any one dares to boast of — I am speaking as a fool — I also dare to boast of that. [22] Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. [23] 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. [29] Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to fall, and I am not indignant? [30] If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.

1 Corinthians 9:14-19 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. [15] But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have any one deprive me of my ground for boasting. [16] For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! [17] For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission. [18] What then is my reward? Just this: that in my preaching I may make the gospel free of charge, not making full use of my right in the gospel. [19] For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more.

2 Corinthians 1:5-14 For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. [6] If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. [7] Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort. [8] For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of the affliction we experienced in Asia; for we were so utterly, unbearably crushed that we despaired of life itself. [9] Why, we felt that we had received the sentence of death; but that was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead; [10] he delivered us from so deadly a peril, and he will deliver us; on him we have set our hope that he will deliver us again. [11] You also must help us by prayer, so that many will give thanks on our behalf for the blessing granted us in answer to many prayers. [12] For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience that we have behaved in the world, and still more toward you, with holiness and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God. [13] For we write you nothing but what you can read and understand; I hope you will understand fully, [14] as you have understood in part, that you can be proud of us as we can be of you, on the day of the Lord Jesus.

Colossians 1:24-28 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, [25] of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, [26] the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints. [27] To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. [28] Him we proclaim, . . .

Yes, of course in 2 Corinthians 11, it is partly sarcastic (this boast of mine”; “I am talking like a madman” etc.), but he goes on and on, and sarcasm (in Paul or Jesus or anyone else who uses it) always has an underlying serious point to make. If indeed, Paul could take no credit at all for any or all of this (the Protestant denial of merit), then the whole discourse is most improper and inappropriate. Moreover, he also uses “boast” in a totally non-sarcastic way in 1 Corinthians 9 and 2 Corinthians 1.

Therefore they tout themselves above others because of their wisdom and righteousness, as Nebuchadnezzar did, . . . (p. 99)

Paul certainly did so above. He had none of Luther’s existential angst and cyclical insecurity about his standing before God. Melanchthon, a timid, nervous type to begin with, seems to have inherited that from Luther. Unfortunately, they both passed on their personal insecurities and struggles into mainstream Protestant soteriology (theology of salvation), so that they became institutionalized. Personally, I suspect that it’s more psychological stuff than theological or biblical . . .

But even before psychology enters in, the root of it is arguably the Protestant leading trait of creating illogical “either/or” false dichotomies. Louis Bouyer, a Lutheran who became a Catholic, wrote an entire brilliant book about this, called The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism. I recommend it more highly than any other book, for Catholics desiring to understand the premises and presuppositions of Protestantism.

Likewise Saul believed that the kingdom of Israel had been established by his power, although he should have known that both this power and the successes were blessings from God, and that he could not have accomplished or ruled over such things by himself, . . . (p. 100)

That’s exactly my point: both as regards biblical teaching and the fact that Catholics agree with it in this respect and every other. Protestants aren’t the only ones who teach salvation by grace alone, God’s providence and sovereignty, predestination, election, the wrongness of works-salvation, etc. This may come as a shock to many, but so be it. I’m here to educate and proclaim what I strongly believe to be the truth, not please (i.e., when the two differ from each other).

But first of all we must establish this point: Although in the regenerate there must be a beginning of obedience and the righteousness of a good conscience, yet sins still remain in them, that is to say, the disease which is born in us, the doubts, the ignorance of many things; or in other words, that they do not fear God as they ought nor burn with love toward Him as the Law demands. (p. 100)

That’s self-evident in the Bible, and the Catholic Church had always taught it, so I fail to see why Melanchthon thought he needed to “establish” it (with whom?: biblical illiterates or completely uncatechized folks?). Odd . . . :

Psalm 130:3-4 If thou, O LORD, shouldst mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand? [4] But there is forgiveness with thee, . . . (130:3 was cited by Melanchthon on p. 101; mistakenly identified as “103:3” by either him or translator Preuss)

Matthew 6:14-15 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; [15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

John 8:7 . . . “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

James 5:15-16 . . . if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. [16] Therefore confess your sins to one another, . . .

1 John 1:8-10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [10] If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1:8 was cited by Melanchthon later on the same page: 100).

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;

The monks even teach that these doubts concerning providence, the wrath of God, His mercy, our wicked desires, unless there is consent to them, are not sins; . . . (p. 100)

The key word there is “consent.” He is writing about concupiscence here. See my articles, Augsburg Confession Dialogues: God / Original Sin (Agreement Regarding God’s Nature, But Differences Concerning the Rule of Faith & Concupiscence) [5-2-24] and Calvinist Total Depravity vs. Catholic Concupiscence [1996].

. . . sin remains in this mortal nature of ours. (p. 100)

No one is disagreeing, so again, I don’t know who it is that Melanchthon fancies would disagree with this. Catholics simply say that one can become holier and holier and more righteous over time, by God’s grace and our resolve, discipline, and free will choices. Theoretically, we could arrive at a sinless state of being, but as we all know, it virtually never happens. We all strive, or should at least desire to strive, with God’s help, to live as free from sin as we can. At the moment of baptism, we are at least momentarily sinless, since all of our old sins have been forgiven and we have been regenerated and born again.

Rom. 7:23, “I see another law at work in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner to the law of sin which is in my members.” Now, although the sophists get around this passage and say that . . . here the word refers to . . . the tendency to sin which has come from the fall of our first parents [concupiscence], yet Paul himself refutes this sophistry in his definition of sin itself, when he says that it is an evil in our members which is at war with the law of God.

Furthermore, we have discussed in regard to this article whether the wickedness which remains in our nature is something which is in conflict with the law of God. Human judgment excuses this corruption, but Paul uses very graphic words to describe this terrible thing. He says that the corruption is at war in his members, that it is viciously contending against the law of his mind, confirming his carnal security or his righteous ness which is at odds with God, filling his mind with pride in his own virtues and arrogance, kindling lusts, hatred, desire for revenge, and urging him to seek for bidden help; and finally it takes him captive, because it overthrows the antagonisms of his mind by fears and brings him to the point of despair, so that he flees from God. aw at work in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner to the law of sin which is in my members.” Now, although the sophists get around this passage and say that there has been a shift in the word “sin,” and that here the word refers to “the punishment of sin,” the tendency to sin which has come from the fall of our first parents, yet Paul himself refutes this sophistry in his definition of sin itself, when he says that it is an evil in our members which is at war with the law of God. (p. 100)

Dom Bernard Orchard, in his Catholic Commentary (1953) writes about Romans 7:

It is characteristic of this and the following paragraph, 13–25, that St Paul argues in the first person. The natural conclusion is that he relates his own experience. On the other hand, to argue from a purely individual experience is out of place in such a general discussion as is developed in Rom. This forces upon us the further conclusion that Paul regarded his own experience in this case as typical. And since he speaks in the past, obviously referring to the time before baptism, it can be further described as typical of the pre-Christian time. Then the question arises whether it is to be considered as a typical experience of Israelites and Gentiles alike or only of the former. The answers differ. All who limit the theme of Rom 7 to a discussion on the Mosaic Law must limit the typical value of Paul’s experience accordingly because it is the basis of the whole argument. On the other hand, Rom is addressed to a Christian community consisting of former Israelites as well as of former Gentiles (cf. 1:18–3, 20) and there is no evidence that in our chapter Paul is speaking to the former Israelites only. In view of the addressees, therefore, it seems more natural to think that he looked upon his own experience in the matter as generally typical of the time before becoming a Christian without distinguishing between former Israelites and Gentiles.

The law of which St Paul speaks here has been identified with the natural moral law, the Mosaic Law, and both together. The last is the most satisfactory answer. That he foremost had the Mosaic Law in mind follows from the fact that he speaks in the first person. At the same time he must have included the natural moral law because of the former Gentiles among his readers. The simplest solution therefore is to take the law here as the Mosaic Law but as typical of the natural moral law in the same sense as the first person in this description is meant to be typical of man in general, Israelite and Gentile alike. This wider interpretation of ‘law’ is not contradicted by the commandment ‘Thou shalt not covet’, 7. No doubt this is a quotation from the Decalogue. But the quotation is so free (cf. Ex 20:17; Deut 5:21) that it fits the natural moral law as well. Nor can it be urged against this explanation that it entails the abrogation of the natural law which is clearly against Christian doctrine. The point of the whole chapter is not the abrogation of the law, but ‘who is to be given first place’, Christ or — as it has been heretofore — the law? . . .

Modern commentators agree that both context and contents point decisively to the time before conversion. It is the characteristic experience of the soul before conversion to the Christian faith to be ‘sold under sin’, 14, and to be unable to carry out its higher aspirations, 15, 18, 23, 25b. To regard this experience as remaining after conversion is against the whole line of the argument, cf. 6:6, 9, 12–14, 17, 22; 7:6; 8; and also against all the moral exhortations in St Paul’s epistle. Nor is it necessary to understand the picture as a reflexion of the Apostle’s own state of soul when writing because he uses the present tense. There is no reason against taking this as an historic or graphic present to denote what is past, so that there is no real change of tense between 7–12 and 13–25. (my italics)

Romans 8 is Paul’s “treatise” on what the spiritual life is like after regeneration. Paul didn’t have two personalities. Nor was he self-contradictory. The topic of Romans 7 is the pre-regenerate or pagan / carnal life, whereas Romans 8 is about the Christian life, which he was experiencing (and all of us can, too):

Romans 8:1-3, 6 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. [2] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. [3] For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: . . . [6] To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.

Romans 8:26-28 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. [27] And he who searches the hearts of men knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. [28] We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose. (8:28 is my favorite verse in the Bible).

Romans 8:37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

Melanchthon, on the other hand, wants to take Romans 7 as descriptive of the life of every Christian (even Paul’s!): supposedly miserably and utterly unable to overcome sin, as if there were no Romans 8 to follow it and provide the solution to Paul’s rhetorical spiritual dilemma, laid out in chapter 7. It’s classic isolated proof-texting, which is sadly common in Protestant theology and apologetics, especially when deliberately trying to refute Catholicism. St. Paul in Romans 8 isn’t arguing that we are beyond sin (as if it poses no difficulties at all), but rather, that we can always conquer it, provided we cooperate with God the Holy Spirit, Who lives within us (8:9-11; cf. John 14-16). That’s why it’s such a jubilant, triumphalistic, joyous, sunny chapter.

This gets to the heart of the “Reformation” debate over justification: does it actually change us for the better (Catholicism), or is it a mere declaration, with any actual righteousness neatly separated into a separate non-salvific “box” of sanctification (Protestantism)? As Protestant scholars like Alister McGrath and Norman Geisler tell us, the latter notion wasn’t taught by the Church fathers (especially not by St. Augustine), and Melanchthon introduced it fifteen centuries after Christ; in effect making out that no one had ever understood this until he did. I also add that our view has the support of the Bible, as I think I have demonstrated here and in scores and scores of other articles collected on my Salvation, Justification, & “Faith Alone” web page (see especially the first section). I habitually provide much more biblical argumentation than my theological opponents do. Melanchthon is no exception.

Therefore, although sins are present with us and the godly to some degree recognize the wrath of God, yet they believe that they are pleasing to God because of His promised mercy, and they sustain themselves with this comfort, as Ps. 33:20 ff. says, “My soul sustains itself in His Word … my soul hopes in the Lord, for with the Lord there is mercy”; Ps. 32:5-6, . . . (p. 101; he provides several more biblical examples of that)

That’s necessary, given our fallen nature prior to regeneration, but in the Bible there are also many examples of God being “pleased” because of what regenerate believers obediently do in His power and grace (which is precisely why He rewards us for same, which is Catholic merit: vigorously and categorically denied by Protestantism). Yet here it is massively in the Bible (“ya pays yer money and ya makes yer choice”):

Genesis 18:19 I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice; so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.

Genesis 22:16-17 “By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, [17] I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. . . .

1 Samuel 26:23 The LORD rewards every man for his righteousness and his faithfulness; . . .

2 Samuel 22:21-25 The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me. [22] For I have kept the ways of the LORD, and have not wickedly departed from my God. [23] For all his ordinances were before me, and from his statutes I did not turn aside. [24] I was blameless before him, and I kept myself from guilt. [25] Therefore the LORD has recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to my cleanness in his sight. (cf. Ps 18:20-23)

1 Kings 3:9-14 Give thy servant therefore an understanding mind to govern thy people, that I may discern between good and evil; for who is able to govern this thy great people?” [10] It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this. [11] And God said to him, “Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches or the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, [12] behold, I now do according to your word. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you. [13] I give you also what you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that no other king shall compare with you, all your days. [14] And if you will walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days.”

Proverbs 15:26 The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD, the words of the pure are pleasing to him.

Jeremiah 31:16 . . . your work shall be rewarded, says the LORD, . . .

Jeremiah 32:19 great in counsel and mighty in deed; whose eyes are open to all the ways of men, rewarding every man according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings;

Haggai 1:8 Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house, that I may take pleasure in it and that I may appear in my glory, says the LORD.

Matthew 6:3-4 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, [4] so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. . . . (cf. 6:6, 17-18, 20)

Mark 10:29-30 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, . . .

Ephesians 5:10 and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. (cf. Phil 2:13)

Ephesians 6:8 knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, . . .

Philippians 4:18 I have received full payment, and more; I am filled, having received from Epaphrodi’tus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.

Colossians 1:10 to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, . . .

Colossians 3:20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.

1 Thessalonians 2:4 but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please men, but to please God who tests our hearts.

1 Thessalonians 4:1 Finally, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God, just as you are doing, you do so more and more.

Hebrews 13:16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

1 John 3:22 and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.

Daniel teaches the same thing for which Paul so copiously contends, when he says that we understand that the nature of man is wicked and does not satisfy the Law, but that we are accepted by God through His mercy for the sake of the promised Lord. (p. 101)

That’s only part of the whole picture, as I just proved. Melanchthon, in classic Protestant style, completely ignores a prominent biblical motif, while pretending that the partial truth he presents is the whole picture. There is a reason why we swear in courts to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Later, Melanchthon acknowledges that we can do things that are pleasing to God:

It is necessary to possess the good righteousness of a good conscience and to know how it pleases God. . . . obedience is pleasing to God, . . . (pp. 101-102)

But he can’t admit that this is essentially the same thing as what Catholics call merit, because Luther and Protestantism arbitrarily, irrationally, and unbiblically decided that it doesn’t exist. In another paper, I provided 46 biblical passages proving that it does.

In 1 Cor. 1:31, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord,” that is, we cannot be glorified or exalted because we are without sin, but we glory in the Lord, that is to say, in the Lord who promises us mercy. (p. 101)

This is another partial truth. Many biblical passages (I found 26 myself) teach that God shares His glory with us. Why is it that Melanchthon, a Bible scholar, didn’t know this; nor does he seem familiar with many other biblical themes I am pointing out? Or did he indeed know, but wanted to conceal them and engage in consciously selective presentation?

In Col. 1:28 it says, “You are presented perfect in Christ Jesus,” that is, even if the regenerate do not yet fulfill the Law, yet they are righteous and pleasing to God for the sake of His Son. Here we should confess and celebrate the fulness of the mercy of God, that in those who have been reconciled, this obedience which is incomplete, imperfect, unclean, and corrupted by many wicked desires, is still accepted by God, not in deed because of the worth of our virtues but because of the Son of God, Rom. 6:14, “You are not under the Law but under grace.” (p. 102)

Melanchthon seeks to force-fit this verse into Protestant forensic, external, imputed justification. To do so, he made out that it is referring to a completed event. But my RSV reads, “that we may present every man mature in Christ.” Then Paul immediately adds, “For this I toil, . . . (1:29). How can he “toil” for a thing that is, by definition, God’s work alone? “May” is present in virtually every English translation of Colossians 1:28. But in any event (whatever the Greek tense is), Paul couldn’t “toil” for imputed justification (even in the temporary sense in which Catholics accept it). He would have nothing to do with it.

Paul also expressly denies what Melanchthon seeks to assert: “Not that I . . . am already perfect . . . I press on toward the goal . . .” (Phil 3:12, 14). This is the Catholic striving for actual holiness, not a one-time instant declaration that we are holy in God’s sight, when in fact we aren’t. Forgiveness of sins and reconciliation — which we receive in baptism and initial justification — are not the same thing as being perfectly holy: although we temporarily are that after baptism until the next sin we commit. Catholic and Protestantism happily “meet” in what we call initial justification, but then it immediately diverges again when it comes to considering what happens after that, for the rest of the person’s 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 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five 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.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*
***
*

Photo credit: Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560): leader of Lutheranism after Luther’s death; 1532 portrait by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Topics covered incl. “working with God”, merit, Tridentine soteriology, Paul’s “boasting”, Rom 7 & 8 & the Spiritual Life, Col 1:28 and imputed justification, and pleasing God.

Reply to Melanchthon: Justification #1

Last updated on: September 5, 2024 at 12:48 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Moral Assurance of Salvation / Examination of Conscience / Bible On Apostasy / Initial Justification & Faith Alone

Photo credit: *Loci praecipui theologici* (a.k.a. *Loci communes rerum theologicarum*) 1552 edition, by Philip Melanchthon [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Luther, who had some violent disagreements with him, never criticized him publicly and never really broke with him. In fact, the verdict of history is that Luther was kinder to Melanchthon than Melanchthon was to Luther. . . . Most Lutherans in America up to the present time have been critical of him, including Schmauck, Neve, Bente, Pelikan, and many others, although that attitude is changing somewhat. (p. 7)

*

Melanchthon was a prodigy. He entered Heidelberg University at twelve and received his bachelor’s degree at 14. He moved on to Tubingen, where he earned the master’s degree at 17, . . . He never received the doctorate and was never ordained into the ministry. He never preached from the pulpit, although he had much to do with the development of the study of oratory and homiletics. He received an appointment to teach at the newly established University of Wittenberg in 1518. . . . He remained at Wittenberg the rest of his life . . . differences [with Luther] appear as early as 1530, . . . and become more evident as the years roll on. (p. 8)

***

They (Catholics) want us always to be in doubt as to whether we are in grace. . . . They add that the regenerate still must be in doubt as to whether they are in grace, and they must remain in this doubt. This kind of doubt is plainly heathenish. Nor are these errors only minor matters, but rather they cast darkness over the Gospel, hide the benefits of Christ, take away true comfort of conscience, and destroy true
prayer. (p. 85)

This is a caricature: a thing that the earliest Protestants were very good at; and unfortunately it’s a trait that has stubbornly persevered in their anti-“Romanist” polemics to this day. We don’t believe that perpetual doubt and uncertainty is God’s will for the Christian, but rather, in a sensible, reasonable moral assurance of being in a state of grace: which will bring about final salvation, provided we persevere. We believe in a thorough self-examination of conscience, which is quite biblical as well. Paul wrote:

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!

*

1 Corinthians 11:28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

*

Galatians 6:4 But let each one test his own work, . . .

The degree of moral assurance we can have is very high. The point is to examine ourselves to see if we are mired in serious sin, and to repent of it. If we do that, and know that we are not subjectively guilty of mortal sin, and relatively free from venial sin, then we can have a joyful assurance that we are on the right road.

***

I always use my own example, by noting that when I was an evangelical, I felt very assured of salvation, though I also believed (as an Arminian) that one could fall away if one rejected Jesus outright. Now as a Catholic I feel hardly any different than I did as an evangelical. I don’t worry about salvation. I assume that I will go to heaven one day, if I keep serving God. I trust in God’s mercy, and know that if I fall into deep sin, His grace will cause me to repent of it (and I will go along in my own free will) so that I can be restored to a relationship with Him.

We observe St. Paul being very confident and not prone to lack of trust in God at all. He had a robust faith and confidence, yet he still had a sense of the need to persevere and to be vigilant. He didn’t write as if it were a done deal: that he got “saved” one night in Damascus and signed on the dotted line, made an altar call and gave his life to Jesus, saying the sinner’s prayer or reciting John 3:16, never having to persevere in the slightest ever more. No. See my papers:
*

Luther and the Origin & Nature of “Instant” Salvation [1991]

Assurance of Instant Salvation? / Apostasy / Falling Away (Bible passages) [c. 2000]

“Certainty” of Eternal Life? (1 Jn 5:13 & Jn 5:24) [5-8-02]

St. Paul on Falling Away from Grace and Salvation [2004]

Absolute Assurance of Salvation?: Debunking “Prooftexts” [Oct. 2010]

“Once Saved, Always Saved”: Is it Biblical? Antinomian? [8-18-15]

Reply to Protestant Challenges Re Eternal Security (vs. Jason Engwer) [7-26-20]

Defense of Bible Passages vs. Eternal Security & Faith Alone (vs. Jason Engwer) [8-12-20]

Reply to Jason Engwer Re Eternal Security [9-26-23]

Grace is also not a static, unvarying condition. The Bible teaches that there are degrees of grace. In my article about this topic I cite eleven Bible passages proving this, and also several citations of St. Augustine.

To be justified by works means to obtain forgiveness of sins and to be righteous or accepted before God by reason of our own virtues or deeds. . . . we are justified by faith, which is the voice of the Gospel, is used by Paul in opposition to the other concept, which is the voice of human reason or the Law, that we are justified by works. (pp. 86-87)

That’s Pelagianism, which the Catholic Church condemned no later than the time of St. Augustine (4th-5th centuries).

On the other hand, to be justified by faith in Christ means to obtain remission of sins, to be counted as righteous, that is, accepted by God, not because of our own virtues but for the sake of the Mediator, the Son of God. (p. 86)

We agree as to initial justification. We just don’t think the whole story of salvation ends there. See:

Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation (Kenneth Howell) [July 1996]

Initial Justification & “Faith Alone”: Harmonious? [5-3-04]

Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine [1-7-10]

Catholics & Justification by Faith Alone : Is There a Sense in Which Catholics Can Accept “Faith Alone” and/or Imputed Justification (with Proper Biblical Qualifications)? [9-28-10]

Salvation: By Grace Alone, Not Faith Alone or Works [2013]

But there are those who reply to this discussion that it is absolutely ridiculous and meaningless to say that “having been justified by faith we have peace with God,” Rom. 5:1. (p. 87)

Yes, we have peace (of course). But that’s not the same as absolute assurance of salvation. St. Paul also wrote:

1 Corinthians 9:27 I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

Philippians 3:11-14 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. [12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. [13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, [14] I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

And the author of Hebrews likewise asserted:

Hebrews 3:12-14 Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day . . . that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God, and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy . . .

And St. Peter agreed:

2 Peter 2:15, 20-21 Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, . . . For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

So did St. John, recording the words of our Lord Jesus:

Revelation 2:4-5 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. [5] Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

They all had peace (Jn 14:27; 16:33; Rom 8:6; 14:17; 1 Cor 14:33; Gal 5:22; Phil 4:7; Col 3:15). But they had no absolute assurance of final salvation, because they — like all of us — didn’t know the future, and they knew that it is possible to fall away from both grace and the salvation that is the end result of it.

***
*

*
***
*

Photo credit: Loci praecipui theologici (a.k.a. Loci communes rerum theologicarum) 1552 edition, by Philip Melanchthon [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Reply to Philip Melanchthon’s Loci Communes regarding justification, incl. moral assurance of salvation, examination of conscience, apostasy, and initial justification

Mariolatry in Ubi Primum (1849)? (vs. Dr. Robert Gagnon)

Last updated on: September 17, 2024 at 11:47 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo credit: The Ghent Altarpiece: Virgin Mary (detail; bet. 1426-1429), by Jan van Eyck (c. 1390-1441) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon (see his Facebook page; public posts) is a Visiting Scholar in Biblical Studies at Wesley Biblical Seminary; formerly Professor of Biblical Studies at Houston Christian University and Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He obtained a Master of Theological Studies (MTS): Biblical Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School and a (Ph.D.) in New Testament Studies, magna cum laude, from Princeton Theological Seminary. Dr. Gagnon grew up Catholic, and he wrote on 8-17-24:

I didn’t find Christ in Catholicism . . . I lost the forest (the big picture of Christ) for a lot of unnecessary trees that were not scripturally grounded. Part of this . . . was due to some non-scriptural and even (in some cases) anti-scriptural doctrines that undermine the role and significance of Christ. I would love to come back to a purified Catholicism more in keeping with a biblical witness. The excessive adulation of Mary, which at times seems to me to come close to elevating her to the godhead (like a replacement consort for Yahweh in lieu of Asherah), is one such obstacle.

After I had made five in-depth responses to him, Dr. Gagnon replied (just for the record) in a thread on another Facebook page, on 9-17-24, underneath my links to all five: “like your other one, it is an amateurish piece.” This is his silly and arrogant way of dismissing my critiques in one fell swoop. I had informed him that I had over twenty “officially published books” [22, to be exact] and yet he replied that he didn’t know “whether” they were “self-published or with a vanity press or a reputable press.”

His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.

*****

I’m responding to a post on his Facebook page, dated 8-20-24, devoted to massively criticizing alleged idolatrous utterances in the Catholic papal document, Ubi Primum (On the Immaculate Conception), from Blessed Pope Pius IX, issued on 2 February 1849. The post was “with” Jerry Walls: another vocal critic of Catholicism (whom I’ve critiqued many times), who misguidedly pontificates in the combox (8-20-24): “It’s certainly easy to see why lay RCs actually worship Mary and have no qualms at all in doing so.”

Before I start analyzing point-by-point, some preliminary general observations need to be made, in order for readers to properly understand the Catholic worldview, Catholic Mariology, and my own responses. Every worldview has basic premises and presuppositions, and when speaking to others in the same group, it’s not necessary — and would be foolish and tedious — to reiterate in every other sentence (in writing), or every two minutes (if speaking) what those are. So, for example, all educated Protestant discussions presuppose the self-defined “two pillars of the Reformation”: sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone as the rule of faith) and sola fide (faith alone as the fundamental soteriology or theology of salvation and justification). Many other propositions flow from these assumed, ingrained presuppositions. They need not be repeated over and over.

Catholics are no different. We have a highly developed devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, whereas Protestantism today has virtually none to speak of; only minimal lip service: mostly at Christmas, where they even habitually set up statues [gasp!] of Mary and St. Joseph, and temporarily forget that — according to their own theology — this is an outrageous practice. When it comes to Mary, Catholics will speak in language — developed over many centuries — that to Protestant ears unfamiliar with it will automatically sound “idolatrous” at worst and extremely “excessive” at best. Because Protestantism essentially ditched the doctrine of the communion of saints, it can’t comprehend any veneration — not worship! — at all towards anyone but God. And so any such devotion sounds horrifying and blasphemous to them.

I’ve defended such “flowery” Marian Catholic language and expressiveness many times. Fortunately, the person perhaps most excoriated in this regard, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, author of The Glories of Mary (which I defended 22 years ago), often does explain in his book, the presuppositions about our Lord Jesus that any informed Catholic always takes for granted when writing or talking (or thinking) about the Blessed Virgin Mary. But Protestants often seem unaware of these initial premises, so they mistakenly assume — in their lack of knowledge of Catholicism — that Marian devotion in its essence is somehow deliberately attempting to denigrate Jesus or set up an idol in competition with Him. Hence, the problem of communication and one group hugely misunderstanding another. The problem isn’t supposed idolatry, but the ignorance of the accuser. I wrote in my paper defending St. Alphonsus:

In order to properly understand the overall framework of the thoughts and ideas and doctrines expressed in this book, we must examine what St. Alphonsus has to say about the relationship of Mary to God the Father and God the Son, Jesus, since this is [Protestants’] primary and most impassioned charge: that she supposedly usurps and overthrows God’s prerogatives and unique position of supreme honor and glory, in Catholic theology, and attains some sort of divine or quasi-divine or semi-divine status (which would, indeed, be blasphemous and grossly heretical). Nothing could be further from the truth, and this is all expressed in the book itself.

Now here is what St. Alphonsus also wrote in this book so hated by Protestant critics of Catholic Mariology. All excerpts are taken from The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus de Liguori — a Doctor of the Catholic Church –, edited by Rev. Eugene Grimm, Two Volumes in One, Fourth Reprint Revised, Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, 1931:

[citing another in agreement] “His divine Son paid and offered the superabundant price of his precious blood in which alone is our salvation, life, and resurrection.” (“To the Reader,” p. 26)

Jesus our Redeemer, with an excess of mercy and love, came to restore this life by his own death on the cross . . . by reconciling us with God he made himself the Father of souls in the law of grace . . . (p. 47)

In us she beholds that which has been purchased at the price of the death of Jesus Christ . . . Mary well knows that her Son came into the world only to save us poor creatures . . . (pp. 60-61)

“Either pity me,” will I say with the devout St. Anselm, “O my Jesus, and forgive me, and do thou pity me, my Mother Mary, by interceding for me” . . . my Jesus, forgive me; My Mother Mary, help me. (p. 79)

We know that Jesus Christ is our only Saviour, and that he alone by his merits has obtained and obtains salvation for us . . . (p. 137)

The price of my salvation is already paid; my Saviour has already shed his blood, which suffices to save an infinity of worlds. This blood has only to be applied even to such a one as I am. And that is thy office, O Blessed Virgin. (pp. 140-141)

No one denies that Jesus Christ is our only mediator of justice, and that he by his merits has obtained our reconciliation with God . . . St. Bernard says, “Let us not imagine that we obscure the glory of the Son by the great praise we lavish on the mother; for the more she is honored, the greater is the glory of her Son.” (p. 153)

It is one thing to say that God cannot, and another that he will not, grant graces without the intercession of Mary. We willingly admit that God is the source of every good, and the absolute master of all graces; and that Mary is only a pure creature, who receives whatever she obtains as a pure favor from God . . . We most readily admit that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator of justice . . . and that by his merits he obtains us all graces and salvation; . . . (pp. 156-157)

St. Bonaventure: “As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out upon us who are in this world the heavenly graces that she receives from the divine sun of justice” . . . it is our Lord, as in the head, from which the vital spirits (that is, divine help to obtain eternal salvation) flow into us, who are the members of the mystical body . . . (pp. 159-160)

. . . the mediation of Christ alone is absolutely necessary; . . . (p. 162)

Whoever places his confidence in a creature independently of God, he certainly is cursed by God; for God is the only source and dispenser of every good, and the creature without God is nothing, and can give nothing. But if our Lord has so disposed it, . . . (p. 174)

Jesus now in heaven sits at the right hand of the Father . . . He has supreme dominion over all, and also over Mary . . . (p. 179)

“Be comforted, O unfortunate soul, who hast lost thy God,” says St. Bernard; “thy Lord himself has provided thee with a mediator, and this is his Son Jesus, who can obtain for thee all that thou desirest. He has given thee Jesus for a mediator; and what is there that such a son cannot obtain from the Father?”

. . . If your fear arises from having offended God, know that Jesus has fastened all your sins on the cross with his own lacerated hands, and having satisfied divine justice for them by his death, he has already effaced them from your souls . . . ” . . . What do you fear, O ye of little faith? . . . But if by chance,” adds the saint, “thou fearest to have recourse to Jesus Christ because the majesty of God in him overawes thee — for though he became man, he did not cease to be God — and thou desirest another advocate with this divine mediator, go to Mary, for she will intercede for thee with the Son, who will most certainly hear her; and then he will intercede with the Father, who can deny nothing to such a son.” (pp. 200-201)

Does this sound like the Catholic Church places Mary “above God,” or that she “can manipulate God,” or “can get things for Catholics from God the Father that Jesus can’t”? Hardly. The truth of the matter is plain to see. Protestants believe — based on their own theological and hermeneutical presuppositions (themselves not above all critique) — that the notion of Mediatrix is thoroughly unbiblical, and in fact, untrue. But they can’t prove that the Catholic system teaches it in such a way that God is lowered and Mary raised to a goddess-like status. That simply isn’t true, and even in the very book which is “notorious” in anti-Catholic circles for the most allegedly “extreme” remarks about Mary, we find many statements such as the above.

Now I’ll examine what it is that Dr. Gagnon objects to as allegedly “idolatrous” in Ubi Primum.

To my Catholic friends: I ask you in all seriousness, you don’t find it a tad excessive, bordering on worship, to speak of Mary as:

*The one to whom we pledge a “devotion” so great that “nothing has ever been closer to our heart”

None of it is worship or adoration. None of it detracts from God. It’s veneration, which has a biblical basis. Also, there is much flowery language: familiar to just about anyone who has had a sweetheart or spouse. We’ll say “I adore you” or “I’ll do anything for you.” “You are my everything” etc. And so Catholics will say very strong things like that to or about Mary, the highest creature God ever made, and the Mother of God the Son. Martin Luther, in his Commentary on the Magnificat (March 1521) understood devotion to and praise of Mary:

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child. She herself is unable to find a name for this work, it is too exceeding great; all she can do is break out in the fervent cry, are great things,” impossible to describe or define. Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her or to her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees, or grass in the fields, or stars in the sky, or sand by the sea. It needs to be pondered in the heart, what it means to be the Mother of God. . . . she was without sin . . . (Luther’s Works, Vol. 21, 326-327)

***

*The one to whom “glory” should “redound” in “everything” we do

Peter states that our “faith . . . may redound to praise and glory and honor” (1 Pet 1:7). There are many passages in the Bible about human beings receiving glory, by God’s design. Jesus said, “The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them” (Jn 17:22). Paul wrote, “we all, . . . beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor 3:18) and “God . . . calls you into his own kingdom and glory” (1 Thess 2:12) and “he called you . . . so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess 2:14). Peter proclaimed: “the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you” (1 Pet 4:14) and that God “called us to his own glory” (2 Pet 1:3). So Mary gets a lot of glory? Of course! Any of us can and should, and she was the Mother of God, after all. What better creature to receive lots of glory?

*The one to whom we should “always endeavor to do everything that would … promote her honor and encourage devotion to her”

The Bible either permits honor of persons or not. Of course it does. So it’s only a matter of degree. Protestants assume that this detracts from the honor of God, but it doesn’t. That doesn’t follow inexorably or logically. It’s just an old tired Protestant “either/or” false dichotomy. If it did, God wouldn’t have permitted us to honor other creatures. “Honor” appears 69 times in the NT in RSV. Many are referring to God, but many times it also refers to people. We’re to honor our parents (Mt 15:4) and prophets (Mk 6:4) and the humble (Lk 14:10).

God the Father honors those who follow His Son (Jn 12:26); “every one who does good” receives both “glory and honor” (Rom 2:10), other Christians are to be honored (Rom 12:10), and wives (1 Thess 4:4) and widows (1 Tim 5:3) and elders in the church (1 Tim 5:17) and “all men” (1 Pet 2:17) and the emperor (1 Pet 2:17). We honor Mary because God desires that (“all generations will call me blessed”: Lk 1:48; “Blessed are you among women”: Lk 1:42; “the mother of my Lord”: Lk 1:43). Even the angel Gabriel said “Hail Mary” to her (Lk 1:28).

*The one in whom we should have “great trust”

If God so ordains it, yes. Paul wrote that “servants of Christ” ought to be “trustworthy” (1 Cor 4:1-2). Paul described himself in the same way (1 Cor 7:25). We trust that Mary can aid us with her singularly powerful intercession, according to the very strong biblical motif of the prayers of the righteous availing much. The Mother of God, whom we believe to be without sin, certainly qualifies as one we can particularly trust.

*The one whose “merits” are a “resplendent glory … far exceeding all the choirs of angels”

Because she was sinless and immaculate, that’s true, and after all, Paul wrote, “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? . . . Do you not know that we are to judge angels?” (1 Cor 6:2-3). God “rewards” the faithful who “seek him” (Heb 11:6). Mary did this more than any other creature who ever lived. None of this is idolatry in the slightest. Your God is too small (to use an old book title, from J. B. Phillips). God isn’t threatened by His creatures receiving honor and merit and glory. It’s His will and design.

* The one whom God has “elevated to the very steps of his throne” (presumably along with Jesus at God’s right hand)

The steps to a throne are not the throne itself. Revelation 4:4 states: “Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders” (cf. 5:11; 11:16; 14:3). Revelation 5:6 even says that Jesus was “standing” near the Father’s throne, “among the elders” and 5:11 says that “thousands of thousands” of “angels” are also there (cf. 7:11, 15). Then we see “a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne” (Rev 7:9) and “harpers playing on their harps . . . before the throne” (Rev 14:2-3) and “the dead, great and small, . . . before the throne” (Rev 20:12).

Does that make all of them equal to him, too? Was St. John trying to convey idolatry? I don’t think so. But if someone wants to insist that everyone who gets close to God’s throne is equal to God, or that it is idolatry to take any note of them, then the 24 elders and all the rest must be equal to God, in that tunnel vision mentality, since they’re right there with Jesus. That’s absurd; therefore, the whole notion is, by reductio ad absurdum. We have hundreds of thousands of creatures before God’s throne, right in the Bible, but Mary somehow can’t be? It’s ludicrous and most unbiblical.

*The one whose “foot has crushed the head of Satan” (I thought that was Jesus’ job)

This probably refers to Genesis 3:15, which was mistakenly translated as “she” by a later copyist of the Vulgate, and thus was thought to refer to Mary, the “second Eve” (e.g., by Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory the Great, and others). Dom Bernard Orchard’s Catholic Commentary of 1953 noted that St. Jerome cited the passage in another work with the masculine pronoun, thus showing that the error was from a later copyist, not from him. Moreover, many manuscripts of the Vulgate have ipse rather than ipsa (feminine). Barnes’ Notes on the Bible concurs with this judgment:

The Vulgate also, in what was probably the genuine reading, “ipse” (he himself) points to the same meaning. The reading “ipsa” (she herself) is inconsistent with the gender of the Hebrew verb, and with that of the corresponding pronoun in the second clause (his), and is therefore clearly an error of the transcriber.

The Catholic Church doesn’t claim that every pope must be a first-rate exegete or translator of the Bible. Protestants acknowledge certain Bible passages that are of questionable authenticity, too. These things happen. But — that said — one can also say that Mary made this crushing possible by bearing the Messiah and Savior of the world. That was her contribution to the way being made for mankind to be saved. She was a key participant in God’s plan for salvation.

*The sole mediator “set up between Christ and His Church” (I thought there was just one mediator between God and humans)

The role of Mediatrix is secondary and non-essential. We believe that this was the arrangement that God set up. There is much indication of secondary conduits of grace in the Bible. God clearly uses many human beings as mediators. We pray for each other. Moses interceded and “atoned” for the Jews in the wilderness, and God decided not to destroy them (Ex 32:30). If Moses could successfully intercede on behalf of an entire sinful and disobedient group, and if Abraham’s prayer could spare his nephew Lot (and potentially Sodom and Gomorrah also, if enough righteous men had been found there: Genesis 18:20-32), why is it so remarkable that God would choose to involve Mary in intercession and distribution of graces to an entire sinful and disobedient group (mankind)?

If one thing can occur, so can the other (so one might make a biblical argument from analogy). Paul states that he can help “save” people (1 Cor 9:22) and refers to his “stewardship of God’s grace” (Eph 3:2; cf. 2 Cor 4:15). Peter says that we can all do that for each other (1 Pet 4:10). Paul informs Timothy that he can “save” both himself and his “hearers” (1 Tim 4:16; cf. 1 Cor 7:16; James 5:20; 1 Pet 3:1), and teaches that God uses preaching and spouses to save people (1 Cor 1:21; 7:16; cf. 1 Pet 3:1). James says that we can help convert others (Jas 5:19-20).

God can do whatever He wants! It is written in the Psalms and prophets that God could raise up a rock or a tree to sing His praises, if stubborn men refuse to do so. God used a donkey (Balaam’s ass) to speak and express His will once. He appeared in a burning bush and in a cloud. He chose to come to earth as a baby! Why should anything He does or chooses to do surprise us, or make us wonder in befuddlement? The ending of Job makes this clear enough. His thoughts are as far above ours as the stars are above the earth (Isaiah 55:8-9). None of this Catholic belief is in conflict with biblical teaching; though it’s not explicitly taught. It’s in harmony with what we know.

*The one who “always has delivered the Christian people from their greatest calamities and … all their enemies, ever rescuing them”

*The one who is “the foundation of all our confidence”

These go back to the principle of the righteous person’s prayers having great power. If indeed Mary was the most holy person, her prayers would have the most power, based on what James taught, just as Moses, Abraham, Samuel, Daniel, and other holy people bailed out the ancient Israelites over and over again.

*The one who, “through her efficacious intercession with God,” delivers “her children” even from “the punishments of God’s anger”

Oh, you mean like Moses did?:

Numbers 11:1-2 And the people complained in the hearing of the LORD about their misfortunes; and when the LORD heard it, his anger was kindled, and the fire of the LORD burned among them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp. [2] Then the people cried to Moses; and Moses prayed to the LORD, and the fire abated.

*

Numbers 14:17-20 And now, I pray thee, let the power of the LORD be great as thou hast promised, saying, [18] `The LORD is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.’ [19] Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray thee, according to the greatness of thy steadfast love, and according as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.” [20] Then the LORD said, “I have pardoned, according to your word;

If Moses already did it, why is it unthinkable that Mary could do the same?

*The one to whom “God has committed the treasury of all good things”

God can do that; no problem. Do Protestants wish to argue that God couldn’t possibly do it? He delegates tasks to human beings all the time. Nothing in this (as with everything else here) is contrary to the teachings of Scripture. It’s not proven from Scripture, either, but it’s not contradictory to it, and so can’t be ruled out as a possibility.

*The one through whom is “obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation … everything”

As the pope explained in the next sentence: “For this is His will, that we obtain everything through [not, by, or from] Mary.” I can think of analogies. God seemed to do virtually everything through Moses when he was around, and through Peter, when he led the early Church, and Paul when he was at the forefront of evangelism to the Gentiles. If God chooses to use Mary to extend His grace and salvation, who are we to object? So critics say it’s not spelled out in the Bible? Neither are sola Scriptura or sola fide (and both are contradicted numerous times). The New Testament canon is not in the Bible anywhere, yet it’s believed. So we don’t buy this line that everything Protestants believe is explicit in the Bible. That has never been true.

To which I say: What’s left for Jesus in terms of adoration, devotion, and functions?

Everything that was there all along, as St. Alphonsus constantly reiterated: as documented above. Protestants simply can’t see past their relentless false dichotomies. Catholics have much more faith, and reason, and we worship a bigger God, Who can and does use His creatures in extraordinary ways.

I thought our greatest devotion should be to Jesus.

Of course. That’s why St. Alphonsus wrote about Jesus’ “precious blood in which alone is our salvation, life, and resurrection” and that “Jesus our Redeemer” was the one Who “came into the world only to save us poor creatures” and that “Jesus Christ is our only Saviour, and that he alone by his merits has obtained and obtains salvation for us” and that Jesus’ blood “suffices to save an infinity of worlds” and that “No one denies that Jesus Christ is our only mediator of justice, and that he by his merits has obtained our reconciliation with God” and that “God is the source of every good, and the absolute master of all graces; and that Mary is only a pure creature, who receives whatever she obtains as a pure favor from God” and that “He has supreme dominion over all, and also over Mary.”

And this is the book usually considered the most outrageously “idolatrous.” It has a Christology identical to that of Protestantism. Blessed Pope Pius IX was speaking in a way similar to St. Alphonsus. I have defended other commonly trashed Marian devotees and devotions as well:

Defense of the Our Lady of Perpetual Help Devotion vs. Calvinists [7-16-07]

Was St. Louis de Montfort a Blasphemous Mariolater? (cf. abridged, National Catholic Register version) [2009]

Maximilian Kolbe’s “Flowery” Marian Veneration & the Bible [2010]

Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart: Biblical Reflections [11-23-10]

The Rosary: “Vain Repetition” or Biblical Devotion? [5-24-16]

Is the Rosary Christ-Centered? [5-25-16]

Many more related articles: see my Blessed Virgin Mary web page.

That he is the object of our great trust. That it is his glory that we should most seek. That he is the foundation of our every confidence. That it is he who has rescued us from all our troubles and punishments. That he was the one who crushed Satan’s head. That he was the sole mediator between God and his church. That in him is found the treasury of all good things. That it is his efficacious intercession at God’s right hand that achieves our deliverance. That it is through him that we have obtained salvation.

Indeed: as the quotes I just gave and many more assert.

You really don’t find this excessive, a swallowing up of everything that the NT witness attributes to Jesus?

Not at all, if it is actually understood. That’s the key. Not a single prerogative of Jesus is removed by veneration of Mary and God’s use of her to distribute His self-originated grace, by His plan. We already know from the Bible that God does many amazing things with human beings, that might seem at first glance to be idolatrous also, or to blur the line between man and God. St. Paul implies that believers even while on the earth can achieve “the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding” (Col 1:9) and can obtain “all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, of Christ” (Col 1:10).

And they “shall be like” Jesus (1 Jn 3:2) and fully “united to the Lord” and “one spirit with him” (1 Cor 6:17). Saints in heaven will be “filled with all the fulness of God” (Eph 3:19) and “the fulness of Christ” (Eph 4:13) and will be fully “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4) and totally free of and from sin (Rev 19:8; 21:8, 27; 22:14-15).

We’re “equal to” angels after death, according to Jesus (Lk 20:36), and “like angels” (Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25). Moreover, there is the whole theology of God indwelling us. We’re described as “God’s temple” (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:22). God “will live in” us (2 Cor 6:16). He’s “in” us (1 Jn 3:24; 4:4). God “abides in” us (1 Jn 3:24; 4:12-13, 15-16). Jesus abides in us (Jn 6:56; 15:4), and He is “in” us (Jn 14:20; 17:23; Rom 8:10; Col 1:27). He dwells in our “hearts” (Eph 3:17). The Holy Spirit is “within” us (Ezek 37:14). He’s “with” us (Jn 14:16), “dwells” “in” or “with” us (Jn 14:17; Rom 8:9, 11; 1 Cor 3:16), and is in our “hearts” (2 Cor 1:22; 3:3; Gal 4:6). As Jesus noted, the Law even described human beings as “gods” (Jn 10:33-36).

If all that can occur and is explicitly laid out in Holy Scripture, and doesn’t interfere with God’s utter transcendence, then I submit that our Marian doctrines — consistent with all of the realities above — do nothing at all to undermine God, either. It’s only erroneously thought that they do because almost all of the Protestants who protest the loudest don’t make any effort to try to understand these many factors that I have addressed, within the overall context of Catholic theology.

And such loud critics could hardly comprehend these things even if (and it’s a huge “if”!) they were willing to do so: having discarded not only virtually all of Mariology, but also the entire communion of saints over 500 years ago now, so that they think very differently from even the first Protestant leaders. Martin Luther, for example, believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary; even her virginity in partu (a physical virgin during Jesus’ birth], used the phrase, “Mother of God” and accepted some form of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption his entire life: so Lutheran scholars inform us. How scandalously “Catholic” of him!

I welcome any corrections from my FB Catholic friends if I am misreading these encyclicals . . .

Glad to provide that service!
*

I think I may have been a little naive about the possibility of having differing opinions about Mariology from the standpoint of official Catholic teaching.

This goes to show that Dr. Gagnon is inadequately acquainted and informed, not only with regard to Catholic Mariology, but also the practice of issuing anathemas. In a recent paper in reply to Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund, I made an extended argument showing that Protestants do essentially the same thing. For example, Martin Luther wrote in July 1522:

I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. . . . I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, in Luther’s Works, Vol. 39; citation from pp. 248-249, my italics; see much more along these lines from Luther).

I also observed:

Luther casually assumed that Protestant opponents of his like Zwingli, who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist, were likely damned as a result. Luther and Calvin and Melanchthon approved of drowning Anabaptists as heretics and seditious persons because they believed in adult baptism. Thus they would have approved of Gavin Ortlund and James White (and myself, earlier in life) being executed. The early Protestants were extremely intolerant of each other, with many mutual anathemas exchanged. I could go on at great length about this, but I think my point of comparison and double standards is sufficiently established. If one wants to go after a specific aspect of Catholicism that also occurs in Protestantism, then the criticism ought to be fair and across the board, not cynically selective and one-sided, as if only Catholics ever do this.

For further reading on this, see:
*
Bible on Authority to Anathematize & Excommunicate [August 2009]

Anathemas of Trent & Excommunication: An Explanation [5-20-03, incorporating portions from 1996 and 1998; abridged on 7-30-18]

Do Catholics Excommunicate People to Hell? [2007]

Did Trent Anathematize All Protestants? + Dialogue on the Definition of “Christian” (Are Catholics Included?) [6-5-10]
*

“Anathema” (Easton’s Bible Dictionary)

Dr. Gagnon made more observations in the lively combox:

This is the kind of adulation that borders on, if not actually already enters into, worship. Worship consists of giving supreme honor to another. All of these statements sure sound like giving supreme honor to Mary, the kind of honor that in the throne room of God in the Book of Revelation is reserved for God and the Lamb of God. Mary is not even mentioned in those throne room scenes, to say nothing of being the object of devotion and praise.

The language of complete devotion and glory, the functions, and privileges most certainly encroaches on the realm of Christ. It is a Mary cult, it seems to me. You should go all the way and make her the co-redemptrix and mediatrix of graces, for that is where this all leads.

Yes, we do do that. I have defended it many times from the Bible and Church history:

Mary Mediatrix: Patristic, Medieval, & Early Orthodox Evidence [1998]

Mary Mediatrix: A Biblical Explanation [1999]

Mary Mediatrix: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant [1-21-02]

Mary Mediatrix vs. Jesus Christ the Sole Mediator? [1-30-03]

Mary Mediatrix & the Bible (vs. Dr. Robert Bowman) [8-1-03]

Mary Mediatrix and the Church Fathers (+ Documentation That James White Accepts the Scholarship of the Protestant Church Historians I Cite [J. N. D. Kelly and Philip Schaff] ) [9-7-05]

Mary Mediatrix: St. John Paul II & Benedict XVI Clarify [2-19-08]

Biblical Evidence for Mary Mediatrix [11-25-08]

Mary Mediatrix: A Biblical & Theological Primer [9-15-15]

Exchange on Catholic Mariology and Mary Mediatrix [12-3-16]

Mary Mediatrix: Close Biblical Analogies [National Catholic Register, 8-14-17]

Mary Mediatrix & Jesus (Mere Vessels vs. Sources) [8-15-17]

“God as the Mediator of Mary”?: vs. Francisco Tourinho [1-18-23]

Mary, Not Jesus, is the Catholic “Savior”? (Response to More Misrepresentation of St. Alphonsus de Liguori’s Book, The Glories of Mary) [7-21-23]

This goes well beyond your rationalizing it away. The words in this papal encyclical represent a Mary Cult pure and simple. This is not an extemporaneous moment of getting carried away. It should be offensive to anyone who embraces the singular exaltation of Christ in the NT. This was not some kid off the street using this language. It was the Pope in an encyclical preparatory to another encyclical declaring loss of salvation for anyone who did not embrace the dogma of the Immaculate Reception. That so many of my Catholic FB friends do not denounce it is concerning. This is not about “really loving Jesus’ mama.” It is about arrogating to her devotion, honor, glory, privileges, and functions that in the NT witness are reserved exclusively for Jesus.

Mary is perhaps the greatest of all female disciples in being honored to bear the Son of God and be the mother of the Messiah. But her role beyond that is virtually non-existent in the rest of the NT canon. She certainly does not exercise any of the prerogatives of the Messiah, or intercession, or cultic devotion. It is not vitriol toward Mary but rightly biblically based critique of the misappropriation of Mary as an object of devotion that rivals or surpasses Christ (read the papal encyclical above regarding what is said about Mary); and all the made-up doctrine that has no basis in first-century Christianity and the Scriptures that is then used to exclude others from the Kingdom who don’t share these unbiblical views of Mary.

There is no way that Jesus or the apostles in the NT would have supported such a Mary cult. They certainly could have promoted it, if they had wished to do so.

Pretty much all of it is over the top. But at least I found one reasonable Catholic who thinks “some of this is over the top.”

***
*

*
***
*

Photo credit: The Ghent Altarpiece: Virgin Mary (detail; bet. 1426-1429), by Jan van Eyck (c. 1390-1441) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Protestant NT scholar Robert Gagnon made the accusation that Blessed Pope Pius IX engaged in massive idolatry (Mariolatry) in his 1849 decree, Ubi Primum. I defend it.

Immaculate Conception: Reply to Gavin Ortlund

Last updated on: August 25, 2024 at 6:51 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Including Analysis of Catholic Anathemas in Dogmatic Statements / Development of Doctrine and Mary

Photo credit: cover of my 2010 book, “The Catholic Mary”: Quite Contrary to the Bible?

Dr. Gavin Ortlund is a Reformed Baptist author, speaker, pastor, scholar, and apologist for the Christian faith. He has a Ph.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary in historical theology, and an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary. Gavin is the author of seven books as well as numerous academic and popular articles. For a list of publications, see his CV. He runs the very popular YouTube channel Truth Unites, which seeks to provide an “irenic” voice on theology, apologetics, and the Christian life. See also his website, Truth Unites and his blog.

In my opinion, he is currently the best and most influential popular-level Protestant apologist (see my high praise), who (especially) interacts with and offers thoughtful critiques of Catholic positions, from a refreshing ecumenical (not anti-Catholic), but nevertheless solidly Protestant perspective. That’s what I want to interact with, so I have issued many replies to Gavin and will continue to do so. I use RSV for all Bible passages unless otherwise specified.

All of my replies to Gavin are collected on the top of my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page in the section, “Replies to Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund.” Gavin’s words will be in blue.

This is my 3oth reply to his material. He has made just one lengthy and substantial reply to my critiques thus far. Why is that? His own explanation is simply lack of time. He wrote on my Facebook page on 17 April 2024: “Dave, thanks for engaging my stuff. People often ask to dialogue or engage and then are disappointed when I decline. Unfortunately I have to say no to most things. . . . if you are expecting regular responses, I’m afraid that is not realistic right now.” Again, on 23 August 2024 he commented on my Facebook page: “thanks for your engagement here. [I’m] grateful you give my work so much attention, and I only apologize [that] I’m not able to respond more. I think in the past I’ve explained a little bit about why.”

*****

This is my response to Gavin’s video, “The Immaculate Conception: A Protestant Evaluation” (8-30-23), which at the time of this writing has garnered 31,947 views and 1,742 comments. I think it deserves an in-depth Catholic reply, but likely far less people will ever see this, because we’re now in the age of videos. Oh well. Truth is truth, I say, and if I convince even one person, and educate many more than that, it’s well worth my time and effort.

The disciples turned the world upside down, preaching their gospel message, before the Internet, TV, radio, or mass production of books. Whatever written materials existed were not mass-produced, and few could afford them, and relatively few were literate. But eventually we had the written Bible, read by billions of people. So I think that writing isn’t obsolete yet, regardless of how many people still choose to read as opposed to (or in addition to) listening to lectures that almost always have far less substance content than corresponding written material.

0:13 [This is] basically a very brief overview of an explanation of a Protestant concern and position about the Immaculate Conception, then we can follow up and do more thorough work at some point

Understood.

1:56 I’m going to be focusing upon the Roman Catholic dogma

Good.
*

3:08 the first thing that I want to say right out of the gate is that in allowing that Mary was not morally perfect, we are not dishonoring her. On the contrary, the biblical portrait of Mary is as a godly and courageous person, so we should speak well of her. We should seek to emulate her faith. She’s one of the great heroes of Christianity, so God bless her.

This is understood, too. It’s close to what I would have said about Mary as an evangelical Protestant. I thought she was the greatest created person who ever lived, but just not sinless or immaculate. I respond to this by simply appealing to the Bible and also sacred tradition. Somehow, a lot of Church fathers believed that she was without sin, and this developed over time to including her lack of original sin, as well, which could only have been God’s doing in a special miraculous act at her conception.

Gavin then objects to Catholic dogmatic statements about Mary including anathemas and statements about believing in them in order to be a Christian. He writes:

4:20 people soften anathemas today and make them nicer than they were, but nonetheless it’s still clear, however you cash that out in terms of its application, that this is an obligatory part of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church is making the Immaculate Conception of Mary an obligatory part of the Christian religion.

Ineffabilis Deus: Blessed Pope Pius IX’s proclamation of the dogma in 1854 indeed stated:

Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

I can see how that wouldn’t sit well with Protestants, but this is a biblical model, as I have written about: Bible on Authority to Anathematize & Excommunicate [August 2009]. St. Paul wrote, “even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8). See, for example, the article, “Anathema” in Easton’s Bible Dictionary. Our position on this also needs to be much better understood:

Anathemas of Trent & Excommunication: An Explanation [5-20-03, incorporating portions from 1996 and 1998; abridged on 7-30-18]

Do Catholics Excommunicate People to Hell? [2007]

Did Trent Anathematize All Protestants? + Dialogue on the Definition of “Christian” (Are Catholics Included?) [6-5-10]

Moreover, we’re not the only ones who do this. Protestants do, too, all the time. We have a multitude of extraordinarily dogmatic statements from Luther and Calvin, anathematizing all who disagree (fellow Protestants and Catholics alike) with their own judgments (on entirely arbitrary grounds). For example, Martin Luther wrote in July 1522:

I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. . . . I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, in Luther’s Works, Vol. 39; citation from pp. 248-249, my italics; see much more along these lines from Luther).

One of the classic expositions of Calvinism was that set out by the Synod of Dort (1618-1619). In its “Conclusion: Rejection of False Accusations,” the Synod declares, against Protestant Arminian Christians:

. . . the Synod earnestly warns the false accusers themselves to consider how heavy a judgment of God awaits those who give false testimony against so many churches and their confessions, trouble the consciences of the weak, and seek to prejudice the minds of many against the fellowship of true believers.

Note that this is entirely a dispute amongst Protestants. The great majority of Protestants today are Arminian, not Calvinist. They are all condemned by the rhetoric at Dort, and essentially read out of the Christian faith. Catholic dogmatic authority asserts that a person who rejects the Immaculate Conception has been “condemned by his own judgment” and has “suffered shipwreck in the faith.” Calvinist dogmatic authority asserts that people who reject predestination to hell of the reprobate and other tenets of five-point Calvinism (which multiple millions of Protestants reject), are “wicked, impure, and unstable” and do so “to their own ruin.” They are “false accusers” who will be subject to a “heavy judgment of God” if they continue in their ways (Article 6 of Dort).

What’s the difference? In both cases, a teaching which is disagreed with by many many different kinds of Christians is made obligatory on followers of the professed faith, under penalty of the shipwreck of their faith or souls. So why do we always hear about Catholic anathemas, but rarely or never about Protestant ones? There are millions of anti-Catholic Protestants (and not a few Orthodox ones, too) who believe that Catholics aren’t Christians at all, and hellbound, if they accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. How is that not at least as offensive or objectionable in principles as Catholic anathemas?
*
Luther casually assumed that Protestant opponents of his like Zwingli, who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist, were likely damned as a result. Luther and Calvin and Melanchthon approved of drowning Anabaptists as heretics and seditious persons because they believed in adult baptism. Thus they would have approved of Gavin Ortlund and James White (and myself, earlier in life) being executed. The early Protestants were extremely intolerant of each other, with many mutual anathemas exchanged. I could go on at great length about this, but I think my point of comparison and double standards is sufficiently established. If one wants to go after a specific aspect of Catholicism that also occurs in Protestantism, then the criticism ought to be fair and across the board, not cynically selective and one-sided, as if only Catholics ever do this.

So, to use Gavin’s own words, Calvinists made Calvinist soteriology “an obligatory part of the Christian religion”: on pain of being banished or losing one’s job as a pastor, etc. in the Netherlands in the 17th century. Luther made belief in the eucharistic Real Presence “an obligatory part of the Christian religion”: on pain of being read out of Christianity. Luther and Calvin made belief in infant baptism “an obligatory part of the Christian religion” on pain of losing one’s life by drowning: in mockery of believers’ adult baptism. Millions of anti-Catholics today require Catholics to believe like Protestants in many ways, as “an obligatory part of the Christian religion”: lest they be proclaimed out of the fold and damned and hellbound, as Pelagians, idolaters, etc., etc. (I’d love to have a dime for every time I’ve heard that myself).

In the Lutheran Apology of the Augsburg Confession, written in 1531 (Article XXIV: The Mass) it is stated:

In the papal realm the worship of Baal clings — namely, the abuse of the Mass . . . And it seems that this worship of Baal will endure together with the papal realm until Christ comes to judge and by the glory of his coming destroys the kingdom of Antichrist. Meanwhile all those who truly believe the Gospel should reject those wicked services invented against God’s command to obscure the glory of Christ and the righteousness of faith. (in The Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore Tappert, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House / Muhlenberg Press, 1959, 268)

Marvelously ecumenical, isn’t it? Goose and gander?

***

4:48 Protestants in our conscience have a concern about this. The concern is, basically, you can’t change Christianity. It’s a revealed religion. If the apostles had never heard of it, you can’t add it later on, and we think that that’s what’s going on here. We think that this wasn’t something the apostles or Mary herself ever had the foggiest notion of even imagining.

This is another double standard. No apostle knew what the canon of the New Testament was. They didn’t have “the foggiest notion” of that because the Bible doesn’t teach it anywhere, and the NT wasn’t even completed till the late first century, after almost all of them were dead. The first Church father to list all 27 NT books in one place was St. Athanasius in 367: more than 330 years after the death of Jesus. This isn’t even arguable. It’s a fact. Protestant scholars Alister McGrath and Norman Geisler both state that essentially “no one” believed in Protestant “faith alone” soteriology until Martin Luther, almost 1500 years after Christ. No apostle had “the foggiest notion” about Luther’s and Melanchthon’s novel, invented soteriology from the 16th century. I would say the same about sola Scriptura. The patristic consensus was that clear. Luther basically invented sola Scriptura when backed into a corner in a debate in 1519.

No one fully understood trinitarianism until the 7th century AD: the fine points of it took many centuries to develop and understand, with the heresies, Monophysitism and Monothelitism appearing relatively late in history and having to be opposed (as Arianism and Sabellianism had been opposed earlier). But development of doctrine is not essential change or “evolution.” It builds upon what exists. What exists in the Bible — the “kernel” or “germ” of the Immaculate Conception — is the sinlessness of Mary (where? I will show that in due course). St. John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote about its development:

As to the antiquity of the doctrine. In the first ages original sin was not. formally spoken of in contrast to actual. In the fourth century, Pelagius denied it, and was refuted and denounced by St Augustine. Not till the time of St Augustine could the question be mooted precisely whether our Lady was without original sin or not. Up to his time, and after his time, it was usual to say or to imply that Mary had nothing to do with sin, in vague terms. The earliest Fathers, St Justin, St Irenaeus etc. contrast her with Eve, while they contrast our Lord with Adam. In doing this – 1. they, sometimes imply, sometimes insist upon, the point that Eve sinned when tried, and Mary did not sin when tried; and 2. they say that, by not sinning, Mary had a real part in the work of redemption, in a way in which no other creature had a share. This does not go so far as actually to pronounce that she had the grace of God from the first moment of her existence, and never was under the power of original sin, but by comparing her with Eve, who was created of course without original sin, and by giving her so high an office, it implies it. Next, shortly after St Augustine, the 3rd General Council was held against Nestorius, and declared Mary to be the Mother of God. From this time the language of the Fathers is very strong, though vague, about her immaculateness. In the time of Mahomet the precise doctrine seems to have been taught in the East, for I think he mentions it in the Koran. In the middle ages, when everything was subjected to rigid examination of a reasoning character, the question was raised whether the doctrine was consistent with the Blessed Virgin’s having a human father and mother – and serious objections were felt to it on this score. Men defined the words ’Immaculate Conception’ differently from what I have done above, and in consequence denied it. St Bernard and St Thomas, in this way, were opposed to it, and the Dominicans. A long controversy ensued and a hot one – it lasted many centuries. At length, in our time, it has been defined in that sense in which I have explained the words above – a sense, which St Bernard, St Thomas, and the Dominicans did not deny. The same controversy about the sense of a word had occurred in the instance of the first General Council at Nicaea. The Nicene Creed uses the word ’Consubstantial’ to protect the doctrine of our Lord’s divinity against Arius, which the great Council of Antioch some 70 years before had repudiated as a symbol of heresy. In like manner great Saints have repudiated the words ’Immaculate Conception,’ from taking them in a different sense from that which the Church has accepted and sanctioned. (Letters & Diaries, Vol. 22; To Lady Chatterton, 2 Oct. 1865)

*

You will ask perhaps, ‘Why then was there so much controversy about the doctrine or about its definition?’ . . . I do not see any difficulty in the matter. From the beginning of the Church even good and holy men have got involved in controversies of words. . . . The devotion to her has gradually and slowly extended through the Church; the doctrine about her being always the same from the first. But the gradual growth of the devotion was a cause why that doctrine, in spite of its having been from the first, should have been but slowly recognised, slowly defined. . . . ‘The new devotion was first heard of in the ninth century.’ Suppose I say, ‘The new doctrine of our Lord’s immensity, contradicted by all the Ante-nicene Fathers, was first heard of in the creed of St Athanasius?’ or ‘The Filioque, protested against by the Orthodox Church to this day, was first heard of in the 7th Century?’ . . . we must recollect that there were at first mistakes among pious and holy men about the attributes of the Holy Spirit. . . . I fully grant that there is not that formal documentary evidence for the doctrine in question which there is for some other doctrines, but I maintain also that, from its character, it does not require it. (Letters & Diaries, Vol. 19; To Arthur Osborne Alleyne, 15 June 1860)

5:34 with the Immaculate Conception you can at least make a case for it inferentially from other things. So, for example, the typology with Mary and Eve. Mary is the new Eve; or with the Ark of the Covenant. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant or language throughout the church fathers of Mary as holy and pure and the model of virginity and so forth, especially spirals up in the 4th Century

True. And we can make a case from the meaning of the Greek in Luke 1:28 (the words of the angel to Mary at her Annunciation).

6:56 you have people saying Mary is a sinner and they’re saying it without any expectation of pushback, and it doesn’t occasion any controversy, and you get enough teachings like this, that does start to become more of a falsification of the idea

It’s true that many fathers thought that Mary sinned. The consensus is not virtually unanimous and overwhelming as in the case of, say, the Eucharist and baptism and the rule of faith and infused justification (Catholic soteriology) and many other things, but there was a strong consensus as to Mary’s sinlessness (free from actual sin). Some got it wrong and some got it right, which is true about a lot of topics and the Church fathers.

Gavin cites six Church fathers, saying that Mary sinned. This doesn’t disprove the doctrine. It only shows that the patristic consensus was less strong than for several other doctrines. Thus, there is no need for me to analyze all that because I concede the point in the first place, but then immediately note that it’s not decisive, anyway. Many other Church fathers affirmed her sinlessness, and there is a fairly strong biblical case to be made that she was sinless, which is consistent with her Immaculate Conception. The inspired Bible is what we all agree on. If a good case can be made there, then it meets these Protestant objections from certain Church fathers.

17:47 we all know people like Thomas Aquinas who rejected it

But his reasoning has to be understood. He wasn’t far away from it. See my article: Even Aquinas Can Be Wrong (Immaculate Conception) [5-10-24].

19:04 here is a doctrine that pretty clearly does not seem to be anywhere close to the apostles

In its fullness, it wasn’t (I agree), but neither were the canon of the NT, trinitarianism, etc. But the kernel is in the Bible, which means that it wasn’t totally foreign to the apostles, as I will shortly demonstrate. Gavin seems unaware of many of these arguments (beyond New Eve and Mary as the new ark), and since he has chosen not to interact with my critiques, he may very well continue to be in the dark, if indeed he isn’t familiar with those additional argument. And I think the biblical data is super-relevant to the question. It’s not merely a patristic / historical issue.

21:14 what is ultimately decisive for us is what is in the Holy Scripture, because we think that that is the uniquely infallible rule: the one that can’t err.

We agree that it can’t err. It’s what we have in common. This is why I make many biblical arguments for Mary’s Immaculate Conception (most supporting the kernel of sinlessness).

Now here are my many biblical arguments:

Blessed Virgin Mary & God’s Special Presence in Scripture [1994; from first draft of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism]
*

“All Have Sinned” vs. a Sinless, Immaculate Mary? [1996; revised and posted at National Catholic Register on 12-11-17]

Luke 1:28 (“Full of Grace”) & Immaculate Conception [2004]

The Bible: Mary Was Without Sin [4-1-09]

Mary: Ark of the New Covenant (Biblical Evidences) [7-9-09]

Mary’s Immaculate Conception: A Biblical Argument [2010]

Annunciation: Was Mary Already Sublimely Graced? [10-8-11]

Scripture, Through an Angel, Reveals That Mary Was Sinless [National Catholic Register, 4-30-17]

Amazing Parallels Between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant [National Catholic Register, 2-13-18]

Biblical Support for Mary’s Immaculate Conception [National Catholic Register, 10-29-18]

Sinless(?) Joseph, John the Baptist, Anne, & the Incarnation [7-18-23]

Sinless Creatures in the Bible: Actual & Potential (Including a Listing of Many Biblical Passages About Sin, Holiness, Blamelessness, Righteousness, Godliness, Perfection, and Sanctity) [10-20-22; greatly expanded on 7-27-23]

***
*

*
***
*

Photo credit: cover of my 2010 book, “The Catholic Mary”: Quite Contrary to the Bible? (see book and purchase information).

Summary: I respond to a video by Reformed Baptist apologist Gavin Ortlund, explaining why Protestants reject the Immaculate Conception of Mary. I discuss history and Scripture.

Reply to Luther’s “On the Councils & the Church”

Last updated on: August 14, 2024 at 11:55 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Photo credit: St. Peter’s Cathedral in Worms, Germany (west end), in the same city where the famous Diet of Worms with Martin Luther took place, in January-May 1521. Photo by AndreasThum (4-17-11) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

Martin Luther completed his treatise, On the Councils and the Church in March 1539. In Luther’s Works (Vol. 41) it takes up 170 pages (9-178; translated in 1966). In the Introduction included in that volume, the editors observe:

Luther’s On the Councils and the Church represents his final judgment concerning the medieval church as well as the first broad foundation for a new doctrine of the church within nascent Lutheranism. . . . Luther concludes from his analysis that although councils protect the church from error, they have no authority to create new articles of faith. . . .

Experience taught Luther to bury all hopes for any reconciliation with Rome — a sad lesson, climaxing in the conviction that “a free, general, Christian council,” once his dream, was never to become a reality. (p. 5)

I will be utilizing a different public domain translation of Rev. C. B. Smyth: published in London by William Edward Painter in 1847; available at Internet Archive. When I cite Scripture, it is RSV. Luther’s words will be in blue.

***

I have bypassed Luther’s Preface, which consists of ranting and raving and little actual argument. Likewise, I will pass over similar material in my reply and stick to portions where Luther is actually lucid and presents some sort of sustained rational argument. Luther is not Calvin, who (like him or not) systematically presents concise, cogent arguments. Unless one wants to essentially descend to a shouting match or polemics and little else (which helps nobody), one must necessarily be selective in what to respond to in Luther.

They will consign the Church to ruin sooner than they will give way in one point — that is, they will first give up councils and fathers before they will abandon anything invented by themselves. For were the councils and the fathers faithfully followed, ah, then, what a sorry figure would the pontiff and modern prelates exhibit? (p. 14)

Of course, we say precisely this against Lutherans and larger Protestantism. It’s because they have departed from the Church fathers and early councils that they have gone astray in many ways. Not only do they massively differ from patristic consensus in several major ways (as I have shown many times: see my Fathers of the Church web page); they also contradict each other innumerable times, since they have split into many hundreds of sects, and have no way to resolve that scandalous problem. Where there are serious differences of opinion, contradictions are massively and necessarily present, on one side or possibly both, in any given conflict. But Catholicism can trace itself back to the beginning, in an unbroken chain of consistent development of doctrine.

They must go to ruin, and cease to remain as lords in the ascendant. (p. 15)

Thus prophesied Luther in 1539. We’re still here, teaching the same as always, whereas his Lutherans have split into factions: most of them theologically liberal and contrary to historic Lutheranism, while a small portion remains true. If that’s supposedly the “mainstream” of Christianity, it’s a pathetic thing indeed.

Why, the universal vicar is above councils, above fathers, above kingly and divine authority, and angels! Let me see you bring him down to submission, and (if you can) make fathers and councils to dictate to the apostolic vicar. (p. 16)

I guess he’s projecting here, since he wrote 17 years earlier about himself:

I call myself an ecclesiastic by the grace of God in defiance of you and the devil, although you call me a heretic with an abundance of slander. And even if I called myself an evangelist by the grace of God, I would still be more confident of proving it than that any one of you could prove his episcopal title or name. I am certain that Christ himself, who is the master of my teaching, gives me this title and regards me as one. Moreover, he will be my witness on the Last Day that it is not my pure gospel but his. . . .

I need not have any title and name to praise highly the word, office, and work which I have from God and which you blind blasphemers defile and persecute beyond measure. I trust my praise will overcome your defiling, just as my justice will overcome your injustice. It does not matter if, with your blasphemy, you are on top for the moment.

Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world – I Pet. 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching(as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522; from Luther’s Works, Vol. 39: Church and Ministry I, excerpt from pp. 247-249; see much more along these lines)

In stark contrast, popes massively consult with bishops, priests, and even laypeople, before making any major doctrinal or dogmatic pronouncements, as I recently documented. No one could disagree with Luther (if they did he often consigned them to a destiny in hell, in his singular foreknowledge). He was as autocratic and dogmatic (in the worst sense of that word) as they come.

The holy father will not succumb to any reformation of himself and inferior lords, cardinals, and prelates — no council can be of any service — no reformation is to be hoped for in the Catholic Church. Thus he tramples under foot the bare mention of any proposals, and peremptorily bids us to close our lips. Are we required, then, to allow ourselves to be reformed, and benefit the Church with their co-operation, according to conciliar and patristic patterns, when truly the pontiff and papists will not allow it to be put to experiment? . . .

Even in points of importance we would bend, so far as we could, without opposing the Almighty. Yes: we are willing to give way to the very last degree of suffering in order to avert injury and destruction from the Churches, according to the utmost of our knowledge and our power. (pp. 17-18)

***

Anyone can talk a good game, but it takes the cooperation of two parties to compromise or come to any resolution of honest disagreements. So what do we observe in the closest thing to any sort of attempt at reconciliation between Catholics and Protestants near the beginning of the Protestant Revolt, at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530? Catholic historian Warren Carroll described the proceedings and the lack of tolerance in the Lutheran party:

Early in July the bishops presented their complaints to the Diet of the plundering and destruction of churches, seizure of monasteries and hospitals, prohibition of Masses, and attacks on religious processions by the Protestants. When Charles called upon the Protestants to restore the property they had seized, they said that to do so would be against their consciences. Charles responded crushingly: ‘The Word of God, the Gospel, and every law civil and canonical, forbid a man to appropriate to himself the property of another.’ He said that as Emperor he had the duty of guarding the rights of all, especially those Catholics unwilling to accept Protestantism or go into exile, who should at least be allowed to remain in their homes and practice their ancestral faith, specifically the Mass; the Protestants replied that they would not tolerate the Mass . . .

On the 13th [of July] Luther announced from Coburg that the Protestants would never tolerate the Mass, which he called blasphemous, and said of the Emperor:

We know that he is in error and that he is striving against the Gospel . . . He does not conform to God’s Word and we do . . .

Luther stated in a letter to Melanchthon [on] August 26:

This talk of compromise . . . is a scandal to God . . . I am thoroughly displeased with this negotiating concerning union in doctrine, since it is utterly impossible unless the Pope wishes to take away his power.

In subsequent letters he declared that no religious settlement was possible as long as the Pope remained and the Mass was unchanged . . .

The Augsburg Confession must endure, as the true and unadulterated Word of God, until the great Judgment Day . . . Not even an angel from Heaven could alter a syllable of it, and any angel who dared to do so must be accursed and damned . . . The stipulations made that monks and nuns still dwelling in their cloisters should not be expelled, and that the Mass should not be abolished, could not be accepted; for whoever acts against his conscience simply paves his way to Hell. The monastic life and the Mass covered with infamous ignominy the merit and suffering of Christ. Of all the horrors and abominations that could be mentioned, the Mass was the greatest.

. . . no Catholic of spirit and courage could be expected, let alone morally required, to give up all his religious rights without a struggle; and few Protestants, at this point, would allow Catholics to exercise those rights if the Protestants were strong enough to deny them. These were the irreconcilable positions taken by the two sides at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, which made those long and bloody years of conflict inevitable. (The Cleaving of Christendom; from the series, A History of Christendom, Volume 4, Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom Press, 2000, 103-107; see more about the council)

These abominable behaviors and positions are supposedly the spirit of “reformation” and “co-operation” that Luther scolded Catholics and popes for not possessing? Protestants were equally as intolerant amongst themselves in the colloquies of Regensburg (1541) and Poissy (1561). There is plenty of inflexibility and unwillingness to change to go around.

The difference, however, is that Catholics were simply wishing to continue their 1500-year history of development, whereas Protestants were seeking to establish a novel doctrine and “church” which had existed for less than a generation (indeed, for only 13 years at the time of the Diet of Augsburg). Luther burst onto the scene in 1517, and by 1520 had demanded that the Catholic Church change its beliefs and practices in at least fifty ways. No institution can reasonably or sensibly be expected to do that just because one man arbitrarily and irrationally demands it.

In the first place, it is notorious that the councils not only do not harmonize, but are perfectly contradictory to each other. (p. 23)

This is a fundamental disagreement. Because Luther and Protestants believe this (part of sola Scriptura: nothing is infallible except the Bible), Luther is bound to argue the position he does. Protestantism doesn’t have enough faith to believe that God could or would protect His Church from error. Catholics, on the other hand, have faith enough — by God’s grace — to believe that He can and does protect His Church from error in terms of infallible pronouncements not being contradictory (non-infallible ones can contradict, by definition; this is a crucial distinction to be kept in mind throughout this analysis): just as He preserved Holy Scripture without error.

The same charge is equally applicable to the patristic writers. (p. 23)
*

Here Luther denies what is called “unanimous consent” of the fathers: a term that is much misunderstood. In an ecclesiological / patristic context, “unanimous consent” doesn’t mean “absolutely every” — as it is commonly used today in general usage, but rather, “consensus of the vast majority” in line with the magisterium of the Church (see more on this issue).

I strongly contend that Protestantism is doctrinally very often at odds with what the Church fathers taught, and I have documented this time and again. Church fathers clearly do contradict each other in many areas, but a broad consensus can be easily observed. I have documented and summarized the fathers’ teaching regarding, for example, the rule of faith (rejection of sola Scriptura), their rejection of “faith alone” (sola fide): see Part 1 and Part 2, and baptism: all positions in line with Catholicism and in conflict with Protestantism.

A mighty task, indeed, it would be to select the truth, and reject what is false, in the midst of so much that is unlike and wholly at variance with itself! (pp. 23-24)

This is precisely why Catholics believe that God ordained an authoritative Church (the magisterium) — protected in its infallibility and indefectibility by God — to make these determinations (including things like the canon of Scripture). Since Lutheranism ditched the magisterium and infallible Church, it can only offer arbitrary and conflicting opinions (often merely a head count of scholars), and that is the Protestant tragedy. Protestants will fight with each other till Kingdom come, with no way of resolving anything, because there is no final say.

All they can do is split from each other and form new groups, after their endless squabbling produces no resolution. Meanwhile, the Bible teaches that there is one faith, one Church, and not hundreds of competing sects. The latter is roundly condemned in the Bible, especially by St. Paul, and Luther agreed with him; so did Calvin and Melanchthon in their correspondence. Protestantism is institutionally hopeless: doomed to be forever unbiblical and at odds with the 1500-year Christian tradition before it.

Who is to distinguish on these questions? (p. 24)
*

Excellent question! Protestantism can’t answer it.

St. Augustine . . . mentions no other than [baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments]. (p. 25)

Augustine taught that matrimony was a sacrament: “Undoubtedly the substance of the sacrament is of this bond, so that when man and woman have been joined in marriage they must continue inseparably . . .” (Marriage and Concupiscence, 1:10:11 and 1:17:19). So was penance / absolution: “In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance” (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed, 8:16). And confirmation: “By this ointment you wish the sacrament of chrism to be understood, which is indeed holy as among the class of visible signs, like baptism itself” (Against Petilian the Donatist, 2, 104:239). And holy orders: “There remains in the ordained persons the Sacrament of Ordination” (On the Good of Marriage, III:412).

He also believed in performing Extreme Unction / Anointing, which is a Catholic sacrament as well (see more about all of these). So Luther was wrong five times about what St. Augustine taught. He falsely believed that Augustine affirmed only two sacraments, and so followed the “practice” that was a myth of his own invention. This is hardly impressive, let alone compelling.

What are we then to do? Must we subject the Church once more to patristic and conciliar teaching and practice? This is the ground taken by Augustine; but such a step in us would lead us into error. . . . Suppose we banish Austin [Augustine] from their ranks — the residue of them would not be of any great value. (p. 32)

Huh?! Protestant apologists tell us till they are blue in the face that they follow the Church fathers supposedly far more closely than Catholics do; they honor and esteem them as great authorities in Christianity (though not infallible), etc. But now here is Luther expressly rejecting any subjection to them, and disagreeing even with his (off and on) hero St. Augustine! This strikingly confirms what we have often noted: the ahistoricism, anti-traditionalism and radical subjectivism of Protestantism.

Protestants reject the fathers and simply casually assume that Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, Zwingli et al know better than they do. In other words: get rid of the influence of the early Church and follow instead self-proclaimed “reformers” fifteen centuries after Christ, who want to introduce scores of unheard-of novelties. “The fathers contradicted each other, so we’ll ditch them.” This is the mentality. Like Protestant don’t do the same thing to a much greater degree?! It makes very little sense, once adequately scrutinized. The Bible states, in contrast: “Remove not the ancient landmark which your fathers have set” (Prov 22:28).

The preachers at this [Jerusalem] council declare that the sentence of the Holy Spirit [Acts 15:28] is that Christians must keep themselves from things offered to idols, and blood, and strangled, &c. Shall we then, constitute the government of a Church after this highest and first model? If so, then none must touch the red interior of the birds, animals, and fishes, and the game that is strangled by hunters. Shall we adopt this prohibition? Are the Hebrews to become directors over our churches and kitchens, who will eat no meat with Pagan or Christian? (pp. 32-33)

This is a clever argument; I’ll give Luther that much. But it ultimately falls short and doesn’t accomplish what he thinks. Faced with a clear example of a conciliar decision guided by the Holy Spirit, he must somehow discount it, lest his novelty sola Scriptura be overthrown by a biblical teaching of an infallible council (which expressly contradicts sola Scriptura). So how does he do that? He notes that it is a timebound or temporary decision, having to do with legal dietary requirements, that obviously haven’t applied to all of history.

In terms of being analogous to the full Catholic notion of an infallible decision, which is that it is irrevocable for all time, Luther’s point has force. It’s true that it’s not analogous in that sense. But the decision also had the other quality of conciliar or ecclesiastical infallibility: being binding upon all Christians at the time it is given. In that sense, the Jerusalem Council still contradicts sola Scriptura. It was binding upon Christians far and wide, as shown by how the text treats St. Paul’s promulgation of it:

Acts 16:4 As they 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 decision would be analogous to the original giving of the Law to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Jews were bound to that. Things changed later as the new covenant came into being and the New Testament was written, with a radically developed interpretation of the place of the Law in the Christian life. But for the observant Jew, the Mosaic Law was written in stone (figuratively and literally).

Let us understand these matters well before we commit the Church to the modes of life prescribed by ecclesiastical councils. If the first and highest gives us such embarrassment, how shall we dispose of all the rest? (p. 35)

Luther triumphantly — but prematurely — declares victory concerning this dispute. But he hasn’t understood the second aspect of this, that I just pointed out. The decision was binding on Christians far and wide. In other words, it was not merely local, as many Protestants argue was the case in early Church ecclesiology: authority extended no further than the local church. The Jerusalem Council puts the lie to that. It shows an authoritative and hierarchical (as well as episcopal) Church. Bishops and apostles and elders got together and decided what was what. And their word was law, and was ratified by the Holy Spirit (which makes it impossible to be wrong, when it was decreed, albeit being temporary)

But I must not forget to resume the subject of the Nicene assembly — the best and first general synod after that held by the holy apostles. One of its decrees commands all Christians who have grievously sinned to be debarred from absolution for seven years; and, if they die before the septennial penance be completed, they are to be absolved and to partake of the Eucharist at the point of death. But what is the practice now of the advocates for councils? (p. 35)

The same analysis I made above applies here. It was an authoritative temporary decree, just as the Mosaic Law ultimately was. St. Paul taught that:

Galatians 3:23-26 Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. [24] So that the law was our custodian [KJV: tutor”] until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. [25] But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; [26] for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

If we set this constitution aside, we may dispense with all conciliar edicts. (p. 36)

True to form, Luther throws the baby out with the bathwater. It was his constant method. But this doesn’t follow. The Jerusalem Council proved that conciliar and hierarchical authority is a feature of Christianity. Pope Peter was the central figure, and James the bishop of Jerusalem also played an important role. The Council of Nicaea showed the same thing, even though it dealt with things that weren’t binding for all time, either.

*
***
*

Photo credit: St. Peter’s Cathedral in Worms, Germany (west end), in the same city where the famous Diet of Worms with Martin Luther took place, in January-May 1521. Photo by AndreasThum (4-17-11) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

Summary: An examination of Martin Luther’s treatise, “On the Councils and the Church” (March 1539), leading to discussions about the rule of faith and sola Scriptura.

Papal Infallibility: Reply to Lutheran Jordan Cooper

Last updated on: August 7, 2024 at 4:21 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Including Documentation of Popes’ Massive Consultation with Bishops and Others Before Declaring Dogmas, and Particulars of the Voting at Vatican I

Photo credit: First Vatican Council, contemporary painting, c. 1870 [source] [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.

This is my 18th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Jordan Cooper” section at the top of my Lutheranism web page. Thus far, he hasn’t responded to any of my critiques, for reasons that he explained on my Facebook page on 17 April 2024:

I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with my material. I also appreciate not being called “anti-Catholic,” as I am not. Unfortunately, it is just a matter of time that I am unable to interact with the many lengthy pieces you have put together. With teaching, writing, running a publishing house, podcasting, working at a seminary, and doing campus ministry, I have to prioritize, which often means not doing things that would be very much worthwhile simply for lack of time.

I appreciate the explanation and nevertheless sincerely hope that Dr. Cooper does have more time and desire to dialogue with me in the future. I think we could have some good and constructive — and civil – discussions. In the meantime, I will continue to try to write what he regards as “thoughtful” and “worthwhile” responses.

***

I am replying to Jordan’s video, “Papal Infallibility at Vatican I” (8-3-24). See my Facebook post on his introductory remarks regarding Catholic converts.

2:04 I would like to do something that is a little bit more in depth on the issue of of the papacy.

Good!

5:19 Rome really I think does stand or fall with this issue.

It’s certainly central, I agree, just as Protestantism stands or falls on sola Scriptura and sola fide (Bible Alone and Faith Alone): its two “pillars.”

5:32 if we’re really wrestling with Rome and the claims that Rome makes . . . if the pope really is the Vicar of Christ; if Jesus really did set him up as the head of the church then I’ll submit to him; I should, right? And and you should as well.

I couldn’t agree more!

6:44 I’ve looked at a number of sources . . . that I’m working my way through . . . some of them are those that are defenses of papal infallibility, others are critiques of papal infallibility and the critiques come from both Protestants as well as some of those within Rome or who left Rome to form the Old Catholic Church, so I’m trying to get a wide range of texts that are dealing with these questions.

I did exactly the same in 1990 (because this was my biggest objection to Rome; I despised infallibility), examining the excommunicated Dollinger’s objection to papal infallibility, George Salmon’s critiques, and Hans Kung’s, among others. Then I read St. Cardinal Newman on the other side and some other related materials. Perhaps Dr. Cooper will be willing to read some of my many articles devoted to the issue as well.

7:27 what I’m really trying to hone in on for this particular series is what were the actual claims that were being made at Vatican 1 and what were the arguments that were being produced at that time, because something that I have found within a lot of Roman Catholic apologetics is that the arguments made by apologists today seem to be significantly different in some areas than the arguments that were actually being made when certain things were declared Dogma.

There is more than one approach to anything. I concentrate on biblical proofs for infallibility (including massive corroboration from Protestant Bible scholars in various ways). But I’ve also gone into great depth regarding the historical arguments pro and con.

30:04 [Pope Pius IX] releases this document and this document is really essential for the dogma of papal infallibility, and that is Ineffabilis Deus in 1854. It is here that Pius IXth declares that the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mother is a dogma . . . Pius IX is really using the dogma of infallibility in his action here, even before that particular dogma has yet been ratified at any council at all. You don’t really find anything like Ineffabilis Deus prior to this time. Popes certainly condemn people and condemn ideas but you don’t have such a direct declaration of a single pope outside of a council making such a clear dogmatic decree.

I don’t know how he can make that claim, when Protestants themselves are quite fond of bringing up Unam Sanctam: a Bull of Pope Boniface VIII from November 18, 1302. He starts by writing:

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,‘ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep‘ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter].

And it ends like this:

This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven‘ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

This is almost precisely exactly what Jordan claimed no pope had stated before 1854, but here it is, 552 years earlier; 28 years after the previous council (2nd Lyons) and nine years before the next one (Vienne). Protestant apologists who critique our doctrine of “no salvation outside of the Church” — which is massively misunderstood, by the way — cite this document all the time. Jordan himself is certainly familiar with it. I again addressed these arguments six months ago, in replies to Jordan’s friend and fellow YouTube apologist, the Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund:

Catholicism & Non-Catholic Salvation (Vs. Gavin Ortlund) + How Early Protestants Widely Damned Other Protestants Who Held Different Theological Views [2-9-24]

But Jordan also does well, I think, and is fair-minded in acknowledging that Pope Blessed Pius IX didn’t act alone at all; that in fact he massively consulted the world’s bishops before issuing his declaration (it was simply done informally, outside of an ecumenical council):

29:34 he writes Ubi Primum in 1849 where he is requesting responses from a a variety of bishops regarding certain some of these debated questions about about Mary . . . he’s relying on those bishops who are experts within theological fields, to get some input from them about this. and then he releases this document and this document is really essential for the dogma of papal infallibility. . . . to be clear he does come to this conclusion through the consultation of a variety of bishops, so he’s not just bringing this up out of nowhere.

Exactly! Protestant critics (I speak generally and more broadly now) can’t have it both ways: on the one hand claim that the pope is an autocrat who acts absolutely alone, like some sort of Christian dictator, and complain loudly about that, but then turn around and note (or be informed of) the actual fact that he always works in these sublime doctrinal matters with the bishops: particularly but not exclusively in ecumenical councils. And so we see this in Ubi Primum:

3. Moreover, Venerable Brethren, many of you have sent letters to Our Predecessor and to Us begging, with repeated insistence and redoubled enthusiasm, that We define as a dogma of the Catholic Church that the most blessed Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate and free in every way of all taint of original sin.

Nor do we lack today eminent theologians — men of intellectual brilliance, of virtue, of holiness and sound doctrine — who have so effectively explained this doctrine and so impressively expounded this proposition that many persons are now wondering why this honor has not already been accorded to the Blessed Virgin by the Church and the Apostolic See — an honor which the widespread piety of the Christian people so fervently desires to have accorded to the Most Holy Virgin by a solemn decree and by the authority of the Church and the Holy See.

4. Welcome indeed have such requests been to Us. They have filled Us with joy.. . .

5. . . . Accordingly, We have appointed certain priests of recognized piety and theological learning, as well as several cardinals of the Holy Roman Church who are renowned because of their ability, piety, wisdom, prudence, and knowledge of the things of God; and We have directed them to make, carefully and thoroughly, a most diligent examination into this most important matter and then provide Us with a complete report. Through such a procedure, We feel that We are following in the clearly marked footsteps of Our Predecessors and that We are emulating their example.

6. Wherefore, Venerable Brethren, We sent you this communication that We may effectively encourage your admirable devotion and your pastoral zeal and thus bring it about that each of you, in such manner as you will see fit, will arrange to have public prayers offered in your diocese for this intention: that the most merciful Father of all knowledge will deign to enlighten Us with the heavenly light of His Holy Spirit, so that in a matter of such moment We may proceed to do what will redound to the greater glory of His Holy Name, to the honor of the most Blessed Virgin, and to the profit of the Church Militant.

We eagerly desire, furthermore, that, as soon as possible, you apprise Us concerning the devotion which animates your clergy and your people regarding the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and how ardently glows the desire that this doctrine be defined by the Apostolic See. And especially, Venerable Brethren, We wish to know what you yourselves, in your wise judgment, think and desire on this matter.

That’s Catholic ecclesiology (and a wonderfully balanced and practical thing it is): the pope is leader and head, but it doesn’t follow that he lords it over everyone. He works closely with the community: bishops, priests, and laypeople, just as Jesus said that the greatest would be the servant, and called His disciples His “friends.” Likewise, Peter, though the leader of the early Church (as established on many biblical grounds), referred to himself as “a fellow elder” (1 Pet 5:1). Blessed Pope Pius IX, in his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus (8 December 1854), in which he defined ex cathedra the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, again highlighted this sought-after (overwhelming) consensus of the bishops:

[O]n February 2, 1849, we sent an Encyclical Letter from Gaeta to all our venerable brethren, the bishops of the Catholic world, that they should offer prayers to God and then tell us in writing what the piety and devotion of their faithful was in regard to the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God. . . .

We were certainly filled with the greatest consolation when the replies of our venerable brethren came to us. For, replying to us with a most enthusiastic joy, exultation and zeal, they not only again confirmed their own singular piety toward the Immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, and that of the secular and religious clergy and of the faithful, but with one voice they even entreated us to define our supreme judgment and authority the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin.

After consulting theologians Blessed Pope Pius IX consulted 603 bishops and 546 (91%) had responded affirmatively. Four or five thought it couldn’t be defined, 24 were “inopportunists” (i.e., believed that the time was not right, independently of the truth of the doctrine), and ten wanted a more indirect definition. That leaves only approximately eighteen (or 3%) who — I am assuming — opposed it altogether. So in fact he was acting quite collegially and not “autocratically” 16 years before the conciliar dogmatic definition of papal infallibility,

Ven. Pope Pius XII — following the lead of earlier popes — acted in precisely the same way when he dogmatically defined the Assumption at the highest level in 1950. According to Alan Schreck (Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Books, 1984, 180):

In the hundred years before Pope Pius’ declaration, the popes had received petitions from 113 cardinals, 250 bishops, 32,000 priests and religious brothers, 50,000 religious women, and 8 million lay people, all requesting that the Assumption be recognized officially as a Catholic teaching.

That’s no “top-down dictatorship.” It’s anything but. It’s as “democratic” and “collegial” as anything to be found in Protestantism. So where’s the beef?

***

31:50 nothing has been quite so pointed in precisely this way and so he is using his own authority directly and singularly to simply say this is true and you are all bound to submit to it now.

In other words, just as Boniface VIII had done in 1302 . . . But the pope acts in harmony with prior tradition, theological speculation, and the massive consultation of bishops and others. That assuredly wasn’t the case with Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism. If one wants to see how he proclaimed his truths and bound people to them on pain of hell if they refused, I would highly recommend this excerpt:

I need not have any title and name to praise highly the word, office, and work which I have from God and which you blind blasphemers defile and persecute beyond measure. I trust my praise will overcome your defiling, . . . Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. . . . Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world – I Pet. 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522, in Luther’s Works, Vol. 39; except from pp. 248-249; see much more along these lines)

This is what I have called, semi-sarcastically, Luther’s “de facto infallibility” or his (absurdly) self-assumed status as a “super-duper pope.” Real popes, almost needless to add, don’t speak in this ultra-dogmatic, “my way or the highway” manner at all, as the above excerpts from Blessed Pope Pius IX abundantly prove. Later, I’m happy to add, his rhetoric cooled quite a bit, after the Peasants’ Revolt of 1525, and he made quite a few “traditional” statements that Catholics could wholly agree with. I compiled an entire book of those (see the Introduction).

32:18 he is exercising this pointed authority that moves beyond the way that popes have spoken in the past . . . he says “we declare, pronounce, and define”; this is unique; you don’t see this kind of language elsewhere.

No? I again remind Jordan of Unam Sanctam (cited above), where a pope wrote in 1302: “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” This isn’t even as strong as what the Jerusalem Council, led by Pope Peter, declared: “it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church . . . it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord . . . it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit . . .” (Acts 15:22, 25, 28).

No less than St. Paul, with Timothy, then went all around Asia Minor (Turkey) and “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). That’s binding Church authority, led by a pope, in consultation with both bishops and priests (or pastors, if one prefers: “elder” or presbuteros in Greek), right in the Bible.

33:05 his is a dogmatic declaration which usually would be something that would arise out of of the council.

Usually, but not always. The pope always had authority to act on his own. He is not obliged to always consult others, but in fact, popes usually choose to do that, too, because the community and the tradition are intrinsically intertwined with any papal decision.

Jordan starts discussing the notion of (from our perspective, heretical) conciliarism: the idea that ecumenical councils were more authoritative than popes. This has never been Catholic teaching, or practice on any magisterial level. I have written about it several times. The following three articles from twenty years ago were in response to a very zealous Presbyterian apologist named Tim Enloe (no longer active online) who was very “big” on conciliarism as a supposed disproof of Catholic ecclesiology:

Was Medieval Ecclesiology “Fallibilist Conciliarism”? [1-10-04]

Conciliarism: “Orthodox” Option in Medieval Catholicism? [1-20-04]

Council of Constance (1414-18): Triumph or Death of Conciliarism? [5-2-04]

50:27 Those who break off and form the Old Catholic Church after Vatican 1 [thought it] . . . was really unjust that the pope essentially decided that he was going to call people that supported his cause and make them bishops and then give them a significant voice at this Council, even though they were not actually bishops in any real sense or a functional sense. Now this isn’t the first time that this kind of thing has happened but it happened, I believe, at least [according to] some of the claims of the critics is that this happened to a much greater degree here.

I’ll take his word for this. But assuming this is true, I would note two things:

1) This shows again that there was participation of those other than true bishops: laypeople, consultants, etc., which goes against the stereotype of the top-down autocrat. This was like the Jerusalem Council, which had apostles and elders. Jordan cites folks who left the Church and were disenchanted with the council because they disagreed with it (i.e., the were thinking like Protestants, as Luther did: councils can err). But it seems that this should make him happy: to discover that not just bishops were involved in the decision-making process.

2) We can look at the vote for papal infallibility that took place. Encyclopaedia Britannica (“First Vatican Council of Pius IX”) reports:

Pius intervened decisively to alter the procedure of the council on February 20, 1870, and again on April 29. The outcome was to postpone all deliberation except that upon infallibility. The decisive vote came on July 13 when 451 voted for it, 88 against it, and 62 in favour of some amendment. . . . the final definition was carried on July 18 by 533 votes to 2. Infallibility was confined to those occasions upon which the pope made pronouncements ex cathedra.

So even the initial vote of 601 participants was 75% in favor (451), with 62 (only 10%) in favor of amendment. Even if we discounted 120 whom Jordan (perhaps following the reasoning of disgruntled former Catholics like Dollinger) claims were mere hacks and bootlickers appointed by the pope because they agreed with him, it would still be 55% in favor. Those against (88) constituted only 15% of those who voted. That sounds like pretty strong consensus to me. The final vote was then 99.63% in favor. If we take away the “120” the vote would be 413 to 2. So how are they relevant at all to the final outcome? This is straining at gnats.

Compare that to the early Protestant colloquies, like Regensburg (1541) and Poissy (1561), where the participants could never bring themselves to any broad agreement at all. Luther and Melanchthon had already clashed miserably over the Real Presence in the Eucharist with Zwingli, Bucer, and Oecolampadius, in the Marburg Colloquy in October 1529. Protestants never healed their divisions, which have scandalously multiplied steadily from that time till ours.

Perhaps that’s one reason why Protestant apologists so often seek to find divisions and contradictions in our councils. They’ve never managed to have any significant and constructive councils in 500 years, and so they pick away at ours (almost as if they are jealous way down deep because they can’t manage — and never have managed — to come together and reach theological consensus?). Instead we have scandals like the United Methodist Church (that I grew up in) recently voting to allow practicing homosexual clergy, and all mainline Protestant denominations favoring abortion.

51:08 another critique that is is levied at the council is that Vatican 1 had a strongly disproportionate number of Italian bishops and the Italian

infallibility and the bishops from those constitutional states England and the United States tended to be the most critical of the proposed dogma.
*
Really? With a final vote of 533 to 2 and an initial vote of 451 in favor, 62 partially in favor (combined would be 85% in favor in some form), 88 against (15%), for different reasons (see below), we’re quibbling about supposed undue influence of Italian bishops? I can’t find how many were there, but certainly this was a non-factor, given the overwhelming vote. The old Catholic Encyclopedia (“Vatican I”, 1912) wrote about the dissenters:

Shortly before the fourth public session a large number of the bishops of the minority left Rome with the permission of the directing officers of the council. They did not oppose the dogma of papal infallibility itself, but were against its definition as inopportune.

That’s not a theological disagreement, but one regarding the timing and prudence of declaring the dogma at that time. This was cardinal Newman’s position. He agreed with the doctrine (from long before the council, actually, as I have written about) but thought it was inopportune. But when he saw the definition, he was pleased with it and saw God’s providence at work. It’s also my position on declaring Mary Mediatrix of all graces. I think it’s too early, while I firmly believe in the doctrine and vigorously defend it as traditional and biblical. The old article continues, showing exactly who disagreed:

Only a few bishops appear to have had doubts as to the dogma itself. Both parties sought to gain the victory for their opinions. . . . Most of the German and Austro-Hungarian members of the council were against the definition, as well as nearly half of the American and about one-third of the French fathers. About 7 of the Italian bishops, 2 each of the English and Irish bishops, 3 bishops from British North America, and 1 Swiss bishop, Greith, belonged to the minority. While only a few Armenian bishops opposed the definition, most of the Chaldean and Greek Melchites sided with the minority. It had no opponents among the bishops from Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, and Central and South America. The most prominent members of the minority from the United States were Archbishops Kenrick of St. Louis and Purcell of Cincinnati, and Bishop Vérot of St. Augustine; these were joined by Archbishop Connolly of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Prominent members of the majority were Archbishop Spalding of Baltimore, Bishops Williams of Boston, Wood of Philadelphia, and Conroy of Albany.

I would speculate, prima facie, that opposition may have been to some degree due to Protestant cultural and religious influence in Germany and America, and by theological liberalism in France. After all, bishops from countries that had never been Protestant, like Spain, Portugal, and nations in Central and South America, were unanimously in favor. Jordan claimed that English bishops were among “the most critical” due to coming from a “constitutional” nation. But in fact only two English bishops were opposed.

51:48 so the the criticism at the time is that essentially the pope stacked the deck with all the people that are going to agree with him and so he already made this decision. Infallibility is going to become a dogma of the church and in order to do that he basically decides that he needs to appoint those Bishops to make this decision who are going to affirm the decision that he has already made.

As shown, the overwhelming nature of the vote shows this to be a most inaccurate and cynical point of view. It just doesn’t fly. Virtually no one disagreed with the theological rationale. At least 60 who voted against it did so thinking it was not the right time (as opposed to it being a false doctrine). That’s a completely legitimate discussion to have, but it’s not theological or doctrinal. It’s about prudence and when to do what in the Church.

55:34 you have John Henry Newman who’s at least privately very skeptical of this dogma and does not want it to be declared dogma . . .

The latter is true but the former is absolutely not true, as I have meticulously documented from his own words. He believed in the doctrine even before he became a Catholic:

Cdl. Newman, Vatican I & II, & Papal Infallibility (Clarification) [12-10-05]

John Henry Newman on Papal Infallibility Prior to 1870 (Classic Anti-Catholic Lies: George Salmon, James White, David T. King et al) [8-11-11]

Newman on Infallibility & Vatican I (vs. One Peter Five) [Catholic365, 11-24-23]
*

St. Cardinal Newman wrote in 1843, 27 years before the council and definition, two years before he even became a Catholic:

In June and July 1839, near four years ago, I read the Monophysite Controversy, and it made a deep impression on me, which I was not able to shake off, that the Pope had a certain gift of infallibility, and that communion with the See of Rome was the divinely intended means of grace and illumination. . . . Since that, all history, particularly that of Arianism, has appeared to me in a new light; confirmatory of the same doctrine. (Letter to John Keble, 4 May 1843; referring to his views in July 1839)

He made many such statements — including lots of private ones — prior to 1870:

As to the Infallibility of the Pope, I see nothing against it, or to dread in it,. . . (Letter to Edward B. Pusey, 17 November 1865)

*

As to writing a volume on the Pope’s infallibility, it never so much as entered into my thoughts. . . . And I should have nothing to say about it. I have ever thought it likely to be true, never thought it certain. I think too, its definition inexpedient and unlikely; but I should have no difficulty accepting it, were it made. And I don’t think my reason will ever go forward or backward in the matter. (Letter to William G. Ward, 18 February 1866)

*

Applying this principle to the Pope’s Infallibility, . . . I think there is a good deal of evidence, on the very surface of history and the Fathers in its favour. On the whole then I hold it; . . . (Letter to Edward B. Pusey, 23 March 1867)

*

I hold the Pope’s Infallibility, not as a dogma, but as a theological opinion; that is, not as a certainty, but as a probability. . . . To my mind the balance of probabilities is still in favour of it. There are vast difficulties, taking facts as they are, in the way of denying it. . . . Anyhow the doctrine of Papal Infallibility must be fenced round and limited by conditions. (Letter to Peter le Page Renouf, 21 June 1868)

Then when the dogma was promulgated, this is what Newman wrote about it:

I saw the new Definition yesterday, and am pleased at its moderation—that is, if the doctrine in question is to be defined at all. The terms are vague and comprehensive; and, personally, I have no difficulty in admitting it. (Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, ch. 8, 1875; Letter to Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, 24 July 1870)

So much for the Newman mythology that is almost always part of Protestant analyses of this topic and Vatican I.

***

*
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 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five 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.

Photo credit: First Vatican Council, contemporary painting, c. 1870 [source] [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Lutheran apologist Jordan Cooper makes an analysis of various aspects of Vatican I in 1870 and its declaration of the dogma of papal infallibility. I counter-respond with facts.

Real Presence, 1 Cor 11:27, & Protestant Commentary

Last updated on: July 22, 2024 at 4:29 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

+ Martin Luther’s Superb Exegesis of the Passage

1 Corinthians 11:27-30 (RSV) 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. [28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. [30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Something must happen to the bread and wine to make it different (and it looks like it’s consecration through the pastor / priest): so different that if received “in an unworthy manner” a person is guilty of profanation and the result is becoming ill and even death in some cases. So what in the world is going on there? I suppose a Protestant could still attempt to believe in some sort of spiritual / mystical presence of God, such that the bread and wine must be regarded very differently than ordinary bread and wine: as something essentially different. But then the question still remains: how and when did it change and what did it change to?

Moreover, if they believe that, it’s not much different from believing in the Body and Blood being present, while the accidents remain the same (because that involves a change of essence and substance as well). Thus they would sort of “back into” the Catholic position, or even the Lutheran one. But the clincher is St. Paul writing that “Whoever, . . . eats the bread or drinks the cup” unworthily “will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” How can that be? What possible relation would physically untransformed bread and wine have with the physical body of Christ? He was no longer on the earth, so His Body and Blood must be present (under special conditions) in some supernatural / sacramental fashion for Paul’s words to make any sense; hence, one logically arrives at transubstantiation or something approaching it.

Almost as if he is reiterating for Protestants who wouldn’t grasp what he means, 1500 years later — writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit –, St. Paul writes two verses later: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” So we ask our separated brethren again: why is Paul mentioning “the body” of Jesus when discussing the drinking of bread and wine? What is the connection? It can only be the Real [physical / substantial] Presence, it seems to me, and transubstantiation is the belief that makes the most sense of Paul referring to “profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

So let’s see, now, how the classic Protestant commentaries grapple with this text and its seemingly evident “Catholic” / Real Presence meaning. No doubt, it’ll be an interesting survey.

John Calvin, in his Commentaries, presents his usual “now you see it, now you don’t” (some receive Jesus; some don’t) incoherent, self-contradictory eucharistic thinking (e for effort but not for serious exegesis of the actual text):

Now this passage gave rise to a question, which some afterwards agitated with too much keenness — whether the unworthy really partake of the Lord’s body? For some were led, by the heat of controversy, so far as to say, that it was received indiscriminately by the good and the bad; and many at this day maintain pertinaciously, and most clamorously, that in the first Supper Peter received no more than Judas. It is, indeed, with reluctance, that I dispute keenly with any one on this point, which is (in my opinion) not an essential one; but as others allow themselves, without reason, to pronounce, with a magisterial air, whatever may seem good to them, and to launch out thunderbolts upon every one that mutters anything to the contrary, we will be excused, if we calmly adduce reasons in support of what we reckon to be true.

I hold it, then, as a settled point, and will not allow myself to be driven from it, that Christ cannot be disjoined from his Spirit. Hence I maintain, that his body is not received as dead, or even inactive, disjoined from the grace and power of his Spirit. I shall not occupy much time in proving this statement. Now in what way could the man who is altogether destitute of a living faith and repentance, having nothing of the Spirit of Christ, receive Christ himself? Nay more, as he is entirely under the influence of Satan and sin, how will he be capable of receiving Christ? While, therefore, I acknowledge that there are some who receive Christ truly in the Supper, and yet at the same time unworthily, as is the case with many weak persons, yet I do not admit, that those who bring with them a mere historical faith, without a lively feeling of repentance and faith, receive anything but the sign. For I cannot endure to maim Christ, and I shudder at the absurdity of affirming that he gives himself to be eaten by the wicked in a lifeless state, as it were. Nor does Augustine mean anything else when he says, that the wicked receive Christ merely in the sacrament, which he expresses more clearly elsewhere, when he says that the other Apostles ate the bread — the Lord; but Judas only the bread of the Lord.

But here it is objected, that the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend upon the worthiness of men, and that nothing is taken away from the promises of God, or falls to the ground, through the wickedness of men. This I acknowledge, and accordingly I add in express terms, that Christ’s body is presented to the wicked no less than to the good, and this is enough so far as concerns the efficacy of the sacrament and the faithfulness of God. For God does not there represent in a delusive manner, to the wicked, the body of his Son, but presents it in reality; nor is the bread a bare sign to them, but a faithful pledge. As to their rejection of it, that does not impair or alter anything as to the nature of the sacrament.

It remains, that we give a reply to the statement of Paul in this passage. “Paul represents the unworthy as guilty, inasmuch as they do not discern the Lord’s body: it follows, that they receive his body.” I deny the inference; for though they reject it, yet as they profane it and treat it with dishonor when it is presented to them, they are deservedly held guilty; for they do, as it were, cast it upon the ground, and trample it under their feet. Is such sacrilege trivial? Thus I see no difficulty in Paul’s words, provided you keep in view what God presents and holds out to the wicked — not what they receive. [my italics]

If anyone fully understands this, please do let me know. I can only take so much self-contradiction and desperate eisegesis (sorry to my Calvinist friends, whose worldview I do highly respect in many ways).

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: Sin was the cause of that body being broken and that blood shed, and therefore the one who unworthily uses the symbols of them becomes a participator in the very guilt of those who crucified that body and shed that blood.

Ellicott, casually, and without any warrant in the text itself, assumes symbolism, when there is no hint of that in the passage. The passage couldn’t be any more “realistic” / physical than it is. How else could Paul express it to be any more so than it is?

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible: Shall eat this bread – See 1 Corinthians 11:26. Paul still calls it bread, and shows thus that he was a stranger to the doctrine that the bread was changed into the very body of the Lord Jesus. If the papal doctrine of transubstantiation had been true, Paul could not have called it bread. The Romanists do not believe that it is bread, nor would they call it such; and this shows how needful it is for them to keep the Scriptures from the people, and how impossible to express their dogmas in the language of the Bible. Let Christians adhere to the simple language of the Bible, and there is no danger of their falling into the errors of the papists. . . .

*

Doddridge renders it, “Shall be counted guilty of profaning and affronting in some measure that which is intended to represent the body and blood of the Lord.” . . . Bloomfield renders it, “He shall be guilty respecting the body, that is, guilty of profaning the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and consequently shall be amenable to the punishment due to such an abuse of the highest means of grace.” . . . we are to remember:(1) That the bread and wine were symbols or emblems of that event, and designed to set it forth.

(2) to treat with irreverence and profaneness the bread which was an emblem of his broken body, was to treat with irreverence and profaneness the body itself; and in like manner the wine, the symbol of his blood.

(3) those, therefore who treated the symbols of his body and blood with profaneness and contempt were “united in spirit” with those who put him to death.

Barnes’ argument has to do with the continued use of the terms “bread” and “cup” after the bread and wine in the cup have been consecrated and transubstantiated. But this has to do with the use of phenomenological language: the language of appearances. By appearances it is still bread and wine. Paul equates the two things by writing, “eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord . . . profaning the body and blood . . .” Thus, in context, we know that the bread and wine have changed, per my original argument at the top.

Jesus does the same thing in John 6. He starts with the “bread from heaven” metaphor: an analogy to the manna of the Old Testament (6:31-32, 49-50). Then He transitions into making this word-picture explicitly eucharistic. He states outright in 6:51: “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” Then He goes back again to the manna analogy in 6:58. Jesus still calls the eucharistic element of what was once bread and is now His Body, “bread”: “he who eats this bread will live for ever.” Obviously, it’s not literal bread that gives eternal life, but consecrated bread; i.e., His Body (transubstantiation). “I am the bread which came down from heaven” (6:41; cf. 6:32-35, 48, 50-51, 58); “the living bread” (6:51). Jesus is equating this “bread” with Himself. He does it over and over again. But they still don’t get it (6:60), and some of His disciples leave Him (6:66) because they can’t receive this message.

But despite all this, Jesus still calls the consecrated bread, bread. He refuses to stop saying “bread” when referring to what has been transformed into His body. Why? It’s because He is using phenomenological language. He had already done this in 6:50-51, then started talking about flesh and blood, then went back to “bread” to drive home the point that it was the Holy Eucharist that He was talking about. The manna gave physical life, and now the “bread” that is His flesh gives eternal life.

Likewise, in all three Last Supper eucharistic passages, Jesus “took bread” and then “gave it [bread] to” the disciples and defined it as “my body.”

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: If we do not partake of the sacramental symbol of the Lord’s death worthily, we share in the guilt of that death. (Compare “crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh,” Heb 6:6).

Similar reasoning is utilized, but the rationale for it is not given, except in a possible cross-reference to Hebrew 6:6. But that verse isn’t eucharistic. It refers to those who have fallen away from the faith. Hence I submit that it’s questionable as a legitimate cross-reference to 1 Corinthians 11:27.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: every unworthy communicant, or that eats and drinks unworthily, may be said to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, inasmuch as he sins against, and treats in an injurious manner, an ordinance which is a symbol and representation of these things; for what reflects dishonour upon that, reflects dishonour on the body and blood of Christ, signified therein.

Ditto to my last comment.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary: Shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord; shall incur the guilt of the profanation of this sacred institution; for an abuse offered to a sign, reacheth to that of which it is a sign; as the abuse of a king’s seal, or picture, is justly accounted an abuse of the king himself, whose seal and picture it is. Some carry it higher; he shall be punished, as if he had crucified Christ, the profanation of Christ’s ordinance reflecting upon Christ himself.

This is a little better, but is remarkable like all the others insofar as the possibility of literalness is casually regarded as impossible. It’s as if the obvious is ignored and everyone falls into line in offering a symbolic interpretation. The Catholic point is that the language is obviously and evidently literal.

Meyer’s NT Commentary: each man by his sins has a share in causing the death of Jesus; if now he communicates unworthily, not only do his other sins remain unforgiven, but there is added this fresh guilt besides, of having part in nailing Christ to the cross (which, with every other sin, is forgiven to the man who communicates worthily). (cf. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

Again, this familiar Protestant explanation might be considered somewhat plausible or at least possible. The big problem with it is that nothing in the text itself suggests or justifies it. Thus, it follows that this interpretation is an eisegetical one (i.e., extraneous ideas read into the Scripture, rather than simply reading out of Scripture what is plainly and undeniably present there.

Bengel’s Gnomen tries to make the argument that unworthy partaking of Holy Communion occurs when only the cup or only the consecrated bread are received. But this is refuted in the specific language of 1 Corinthians 11:27 itself, as I explain elsewhere.

Martin Luther mostly agrees with Catholics here, because he continued to believe in the Real Presence. He sums up his exegetical argument:

It is not sound reasoning arbitrarily to associate the sin which St. Paul attributes to eating with remembrance of Christ, of which Paul does not speak. For he does not say, “Who unworthily holds the Lord in remembrance,” but “Who unworthily eats and drinks.” Now there would be no rhyme of reason in saying one becomes guilty of profaning the body of Christ through unworthy eating or the blood of Christ by unworthy drinking, if the body was not in that which was eaten and the blood in that which was drunk.

. . . the clear, natural sense of the words is that the body is in the eating, and the blood is in the drinking. And no one can produce an argument to the contrary which has any show of validity. (Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; Luther’s Works [LW], Vol. 40, 184)

He offers a number of additional great points as well:

Here again the sectarian spirit goes off and makes into spiritual that which St. Paul affirms is body . . . where is this written? What is the basis for it? Where is the text? . . . O helpless spirit, how long do you think you can evade the producing of Scripture or text? Are you not ashamed to have ben active so long in injecting your . . . lies, your dreams into Scripture? . . .

*

You must imagine that St. Paul was drink that evening, and when he spoke of unworthy eating and drinking, he forgot and talked too much, for he should have spoken about unworthy remembrance. (Ibid., 182)

*

In both places [considering also 1 Cor 10:16 below] he maintains that the bread of the Lord is the body of the Lord. For if this is not what he meant, he would have had to say, as above, “Whoever is unworthy of this bread, he is guilty of profaning the bread of the Lord.” How can you sin in eating the body of the Lord, if he is not present in the eating or the bread? . . .

*

Now the nature and character of the sentence requires us to interpret it to mean that whoever eats unworthily is guilty in regard to what he eats. . . .

*

All the words in the entire chapter where he condemns the unworthy eating indicate that the sin consists wholly in eating and drinking. (Ibid., 183)

Luther also effectively argues his point of view in commenting upon a similar passage:

1 Corinthians 10:16: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

He writes:

I confess that if Karlstadt, or anyone else, could have convinced me five years ago that only bread and wine were in the sacrament he would have done me a great service. At that time I suffered such severe conflicts and inner strife and torment that I would gladly have been delivered from them. I realized that at this point I could best resist the papacy . . . But I am a captive and cannot free myself. The text is too powerfully present, and will not allow itself to be torn from its meaning by mere verbiage. (Letter to the Christians at Strassburg in Opposition to the Fanatic Spirit, 1524; LW, Vol. 40, 68)

Even if we had no other passage than this we could sufficiently strengthen all consciences and sufficiently overcome all adversaries . . .

. . . He could not have spoken more clearly and strongly . . . (Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; LW, Vol. 40, 177, 181)

Luther thinks the realist, concrete, non-symbolic nature of the verse is obvious, to the point where he seems to be aggravated (the three-time repetition of “it is”) that others can’t see what is so clear:

. . . The bread which is broken or distributed piece by piece is the participation in the body of Christ. It is, it is, it is, he says, the participation in the body of Christ. Wherein does the participation in the body of Christ consist? It cannot be anything else than that as each takes a part of the broken bread he takes therewith the body of Christ . . . (Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; LW, Vol. 40, 178)

***

*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five 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.

Photo Credit: Historical mixed media figure of John Calvin produced by artist/historian George S. Stuart and photographed by Peter d’Aprix: from the George S. Stuart Gallery of Historical Figures archive [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

Summary: I examine the “physical eucharistic passage” of 1 Corinthians 11:27 & argue from reason, grammar, & the excellent exegesis of Martin Luther that it describes transubstantiation.

Eck vs. Protestantism Chronicles: Sola Scriptura

Last updated on: May 31, 2024 at 10:01 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

***

Johann Eck (1486-1543) was a German Catholic theologian, who was arguably one of Martin Luther’s two most important and formidable debate opponents, along with Erasmus (I’ve compiled several of his devastating replies to Luther as well). He was ordained as a priest in 1508 and in 1510 was installed as a professor of theology at the University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria: which lasted for thirty years. He mastered both Greek and Hebrew and had a prodigious memory, boundless energy, and very considerable debating skills. He famously engaged Luther for eighteen days in the Leipzig Disputation of July 1519.

Eck’s argumentation might be said to be one of the quintessential examples of the Catholic theological and polemical response to the Protestant Revolt up to the opening of the Council of Trent in 1545. This is one of many excerpts from his best-known and principal volume, Enchiridion of Commonplaces Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church. It first appeared in 1529 and eventually went through 91 editions. I will be using a later edition from 1541 (translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979; now in the public domain).

Eck’s words will be in black; my interjections in blue, and citations from Luther and other famous Protestants in green. I use RSV for scriptural citations.

***

Axiom 1: That the heretics wish to receive nothing unless it be expressly proved through the Scriptures. . . .

Augustine to the Priest Casulanus: “In those matters concerning which divine Scripture has established nothing certain, the custom of the people of God and the regulations of the fathers are to be considered as law; and just as the transgressors of the divine laws, so also the despisers of church customs, are to be restrained.” He writes in the same vein to the Grammarian Cresconius.

Not only are those things expressly stated in the Scriptures or proved from them to be believed and kept (something the Lutherans are unwilling to do), but also it is necessary to believe and keep those things Holy Mother Church believes and observes. For not everything has been clearly handed down in the Sacred Scriptures, but very many have been left to the Church to determine (which is illumined and governed by the Holy Spirit, and on this account cannot wander from the path of truth). Hence the Savior said to his disciples [Jn 16:12f ]: “I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.” Therefore the Church observes in its rites and ceremonies many things, from the intimate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the tradition of the Apostles, and of the holy fathers, which even if not expressly stated in the Scriptures, yet it is wicked to depart from them or take exception to them. Indeed these things are most confirmed to them, and on that account are to be enforced and observed by all true evangelical and Pauline Christians (such do the Lutherans falsely boast themselves to be). “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle” [2 Thess 2:14].

“The rest I shall dispose of when I come.” [1 Cor 11:34]. Here, speaking of the Sacred Eucharist, he makes clear that he did not write down everything, but when he comes to them, he is going to set forth the remaining unwritten things.

“Having more things to write to you, I would not by paper and ink, for I hope that I shall be with you, and speak face to face, that your joy may be full” [2 Jn v. 12]

“I had many things to write to you, but I would not by ink and pen write to you. But I hope speedily to see you and we will speak mouth to mouth” [3 Jn v. 13f].

Obviously many things both of the Lord’s words and his deeds we find omitted by the Evangelists which one reads that the Apostles either supplied by word or expressed by deed, for Paul says so in Acts 20:35: “We ought to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive” [Acts 20:35]. These words none of the four Evangelists has written down. Also no one expressed anything about the appearance to more than 500 brothers at the same time [1 Cor 15:6], which Paul describes.

Axiom 2: The Lutherans contend that the Scriptures are clear.

Therefore laymen and crazy old women treat them in a domineering manner.

Peter contradicts this, speaking concerning the Epistle of Paul. “In them are some things difficult to understand, which untutored and unstable men distort, as for example some scriptures, to their own destruction” [2 Pt 3:15f]. Note the difficulty of those scriptures, and how (when Paul was living) they were distorted, just as the Lutherans do today.

Jerome to Algasia: “The whole letter of Paul to the Romans is wrapped in too great obscurities.”

Axiom 3: Heretics evilly reject any other judge than Scripture.

In the Old Testament not the law but the high priest was judge. “If … a hard and doubtful matter …” [Dt 17:8]. . . . “When there shall be a controversy, (the priests) shall stand in my judgment, and judge. . .” [Ez 44:24]. And the Catholics also especially admit Scripture, but we differ from the heretics in our understanding of it; accordingly it is necessary for there to be another judge than Scripture, namely, the Church. By this example, taken from the modern heretics (who reject any other judge than Scripture) is shown how the Lutherans and Oecolampadians and Zwinglians contend over the sacrament of the Eucharist, as to whether here is truly and spiritually the body and blood of Christ, or only a figure and sign. Who among them will be judge? Who will ever bring them into harmony? Scripture or Church?

Apart from these no other judge can be provided. It is not indeed upon Scripture (which each contends to be the judge) that they lay their foundation—all the while in the self-same words of Scripture—and thus they do not admit Scripture as judge against their own doctrine, but make themselves judges over Scripture. Accordingly the Church will be the necessary judge, which believes that, when bread and wine have, by the power of Christ’s words, been transubstantiated in this sacrament, they are the true body and blood of Christ, under the species of bread and wine. . . .

Even the devil quoted Scripture against Christ [Mt 4:6]: “That he has given his angels charge over you” etc. , but a true understanding he did not possess, as Jerome concludes in Against the Luciferlans, and the Scriptures consist not in reading as the untutored crowd of the Lutheran heresy now suppose, but in understanding. Jerome, Ibid. Therefore Tertullian powerfully demonstrates in his book, On the Prescription of Heretics: it is wicked for them to be admitted to undertake the citation of the Scriptures. All heretics fled to Scriptures ill understood by them.

Augustine: Arius quotes 42 passages of Scripture in his own support.

***
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five 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.

Photo credit: [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

Summary: One of a series of posts documenting the Catholic apologetics efforts of Johann Eck (1486-1543) against various Protestants. This entry addresses sola Scriptura.

Eck vs. Protestantism Chronicles: Tradition

Last updated on: May 29, 2024 at 2:53 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

***

Eck’s words will be in black; my interjections in blue, and citations from Luther and other famous Protestants in green. Line breaks imply breaks in the text. I use RSV for scriptural citations.

***

St. Paul gives thanks to God in his prayers, 0 Most Reverend Father and Prince, when he hears of the charity of Philemon and of the faith which he had in the Lord Jesus, and toward all his saints [Philemon v. 4-5]. [“I thank my God always when I remember you in my prayers, because I hear of your love and of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and all the saints”], For Paul, supremely conscious of the secrets of God, had an insight that the faith of any man shines before God when he strives to conform it as much as possible to the saints and friends of God, just as Israel believed not only the Lord but also Moses his servant [Ex 14:31]. [“. . . and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses.”] And all good and sincere men have earnestly distinguished themselves from the time of Christ’s passion even to the present day, but not more than befits wise men [Rom 12:16]. [“Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited.”] But those who (neglecting this Apostolic rule) “have walked in wonderful things above themselves” [Ps 130:1] [“O LORD, my heart is not lifted up, my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me.”] and exalted themselves as Lucifer and the noonday demon [cf. Ps 91:6], unwilling to believe in the saints of God, are deceived, and have been given over to the precipice of errors, while they are not afraid to despoil those ancient apostolic men, remarkable in learning, eminent in moral character, notable in authority, and famous for miracles. . . . he who is not convinced by the harmony of the succession of holy fathers in the Church, by the profession and unanimous verdict of councils, must with insolent and proud rashness dash headlong into all sorts of abominable errors. Luther preferred to follow this insane and mad rashness, with his confederates, rather than piously believe, with Philemon, in the saints of God, and the rule of faith which the whole Church observes. For with perverse will he murmurs against the ministers of God, the most holy fathers, and the whole Church, putting his own judgment (0 utterly blind pride of the vainest of men!) ahead of all the foremost men of the Church.

So, for example, Luther wrote:

Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you – or even an angel from heaven – to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world – I Pet. 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522; from Luther’s Works, vol. 39, 248-249)

But he didn’t disregard all of tradition, by any means. As usual, he was a “mixed bag”:

He [Karlstadt] would like with such smoke and mist to obscure altogether the sun and light of the gospel and the main articles of Christianity, so that the world might forget everything that we have hitherto taught. (Letter to the Christians at Strassburg in Opposition to the Fanatic Spirit, Dec. 1524, tr. Conrad Bergendoff; in LW, v. 40)

The amazing thing, meanwhile, is that of all the fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament [of the Eucharist] as these fanatics do. . . . Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side. (That These Words of Christ, “This Is My Body,” etc., Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics, March 1527, tr. Robert H. Fischer; in LW, v. 37)

Since our baptizing has been thus from the beginning of Christianity and the custom has been to baptize children, . . . if we are going to change or do away with customs that are traditional, it is necessary to prove convincingly that these are contrary to the Word of God. (Concerning Rebaptism, Jan. 1528, tr. Conrad Bergendoff; in LW, v. 40)

[T]he Anabaptists proceed dangerously in everything. Not only are they not sure of themselves but also they act contrary to accepted tradition . . . (Ibid.)

[I]f the first, or child, baptism were not right, it would follow that for more than a thousand years there was no baptism or any Christendom, which is impossible. For in that case the article of the creed, I believe in one holy Christian church, would be false. . . . If this baptism is wrong then for that long period Christendom would have been without baptism, and if it were without baptism it would not be Christendom. . . . But the fact that child baptism has spread throughout all the Christian world to this day gives rise to no probability that it is wrong, but rather to a strong indication that it is right. (Ibid.)

Further, it is dangerous to accept such new teaching [a merely symbolic Eucharist] in contrast to lucid and open texts and the clear words of Christ, and to abandon this old belief (which from the beginning till now has been maintained in all of Christendom) on the basis of such poor [Scripture] passages and thoughts as [our opponents] have thus far brought forth . . . (Letters II, ed. and tr. Gottfried G. Krodel; to Landgrave Philip of Hesse, 20 May 1530; in LW, v. 49)

[Y]ou would be troubled not only for the sake of your soul, which would be damned thereby, but for the sake of the whole Christian Church, for if you allow any to teach against the long and unanimously held doctrine of the Church when you can prevent it, it may well be called an unbearable burden to conscience. . . . For we must not trifle with the articles of faith so long and unanimously held by Christendom, . . . (To Duke Albert of Prussia, Feb. or early March 1532)

Luther’s “Tower” Justification Idea & Catholicism

Last updated on: May 28, 2024 at 1:08 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

+ Early Catholic Church & St. Thomas Aquinas on Grace Alone (Contra Pelagianism) & Justification

***

A website called Reformation 500 provides the standard, boilerplate Protestant polemic and mythology about one of the key events of the Protestant Revolt (aka, “Reformation”) and about the supposed Catholic belief before it occurred:

The [Catholic] church taught that the church and its human priesthood were indispensable for salvation. (“Luther’s Tower Experience: Martin Luther Discovers the True Meaning of Righteousness by Faith,” 1-13-17)

In fact, both Martin Luther and John Calvin taught a version of the same notion. Luther stated:

[O]utside the Christian church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation. (Sermons II, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand; Sermon for the Early Christmas Service, Luke 2 [:15-20], 25 December 1521, translated by John G. Kunstmann; in Luther’s Works, vol. 52)

And Calvin agreed:

[B]eyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for . . . the abandonment of the Church is always fatal (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bk. IV, 1:4)

This being the case, why rail against the Catholic Church for believing the same? The article continues:

[R]elief from guilt and punishment could be dispensed by the church at whatever price it set. There was no benefit in the church teaching that God “so loved the world” that He paid the price of the sinner’s disobedience Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. If Christians feared God, the church had an important role to play in mediating between God and sinners.

Salvation as a gift of grace and righteousness by faith were not understood by Christians until the Reformation. Christians were taught to feel terror toward God and to believe that He watched their every move, eager to punish any slip. As a result, Christians felt indebted to the church for standing between that wrathful God and themselves.

Luther’s breakthrough in understanding and his preaching of justification by faith as a gift from the heart of a loving, heavenly Father changed everything. Suddenly, God’s character was seen in a new light. The Reformation taught believers to approach God personally because He was a loving Father who delighted in mercy. (Ibid.; my italics)

First of all, before I begin my analysis proper, I have in the past noted many times how the Catholic belief concerning initial justification is virtually identical to Protestant justification by faith alone; and we also agree that salvation is ultimately by grace (sola gratia). See:

Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation (Kenneth Howell) [July 1996]

Initial Justification & “Faith Alone”: Harmonious? [5-3-04]

2nd Council of Orange: Sola Gratia vs. Total Depravity [1-5-09]

Grace Alone: Perfectly Acceptable Catholic Teaching [2-3-09]

Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine [1-7-10]

Catholics & Justification by Faith Alone : Is There a Sense in Which Catholics Can Accept “Faith Alone” and/or Imputed Justification (with Proper Biblical Qualifications)? [9-28-10]

Salvation: By Grace Alone, Not Faith Alone or Works [2013]

Grace Alone: Biblical & Catholic Teaching [12-1-15]

Catholics and Protestants Agree on Grace Alone and the Necessity of the Presence of Good Works in Regenerate and Ultimately Saved Persons; Disagree on Faith Alone [5-4-17]

Now let’s look at Luther’s own report of his “tower” experience, from the same article cited above:

Meanwhile in that same year, 1519, I had begun interpreting the Psalms once again. I felt confident that I was now more experienced, since I had dealt in university courses with St. Paul’s Letters to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the Letter to the Hebrews. I had conceived a burning desire to understand what Paul meant in his Letter to the Romans, but thus far there had stood in my way, not the cold blood around my heart, but that one word which is in chapter one: “The justice of God is revealed in it.” I hated that word, “justice of God,” which, by the use and custom of all my teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically as referring to formal or active justice, as they call it, i.e., that justice by which God is just and by which he punishes sinners and the unjust.

But I, blameless monk that I was, felt that before God I was a sinner with an extremely troubled conscience. I couldn’t be sure that God was appeased by my satisfaction. I did not love, no, rather I hated the just God who punishes sinners. In silence, if I did not blaspheme, then certainly I grumbled vehemently and got angry at God. I said, “Isn’t it enough that we miserable sinners, lost for all eternity because of original sin, are oppressed by every kind of calamity through the Ten Commandments? Why does God heap sorrow upon sorrow through the Gospel and through the Gospel threaten us with his justice and his wrath?” This was how I was raging with wild and disturbed conscience. I constantly badgered St. Paul about that spot in Romans 1 and anxiously wanted to know what he meant.

I meditated night and day on those words until at last, by the mercy of God, I paid attention to their context: “The justice of God is revealed in it, as it is written: ‘The just person lives by faith.’” I began to understand that in this verse the justice of God is that by which the just person lives by a gift of God, that is by faith. I began to understand that this verse means that the justice of God is revealed through the Gospel, but it is a passive justice, i.e. that by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written: “The just person lives by faith.” All at once I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates. Immediately I saw the whole of Scripture in a different light. I ran through the Scriptures from memory and found that other terms had analogous meanings, e.g., the work of God, that is, what God works in us; the power of God, by which he makes us powerful; the wisdom of God, by which he makes us wise; the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God. (translation by Bro. Andrew Thornton, OSB, for the Saint Anselm College Humanities Program. It is distributed by Project Wittenberg with the permission of the author. (c)1983 by Saint Anselm Abbey).

Our beef with this is the idea that this was some blinding insight that never crossed Catholic minds since time immemorial. It’s the same sort of myth that we also see when, for example Luther made out that no one ever had the Bible in their own tongue till he came along. Now he wants to claim credit for discovering the true doctrines of sola gratia and justification. And that myth had been bandied about for 500 years now.

Readers of this article have the rare opportunity of actually being able to learn about the Catholic perspective on all this, too. There are always two sides to every story. It so happens that the basic outlook of Luther’s realization — at least in some significant aspects — was expressed by the Catholic Church 989 to 1000 years earlier. The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Heinrich Denzinger) is the standard Catholic compendium of Catholic dogmas. It’s available online (30th edition, 1854), and I have the latest 43rd edition (2012) in my library, about three feet away from me as I write. It was partially translated and edited by a good friend of mine, Dr. Robert Fastiggi. The two versions have a different numbering system. I will note both as I cite these reference works.

The 15th (or 16th) Synod of Carthage in May 418 decreed:

“whoever says, that for this reason the grace of justification is given to us, that what we are ordered to do through free will we may be able to accomplish more easily through grace, just as if, even were grace not given, we could nevertheless fulfill the divine commands without it, though not indeed easily, let him be anathema. For of the fruits of his commands the Lord did not speak when He said: Without me you can accomplish (them) with more difficulty, but when He said: Without me you can do nothing [John 15:5].” (Denz. #138 / new number: 227)

Then we have the Second Council of Orange, begin on July 3, 529:

Can. 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be bestowed by human invocation, but that the grace itself does not bring it to pass that it be invoked by us, he contradicts Isaias the Prophet, or the Apostle who says the same thing: “I was found by those who were not seeking me: I appeared openly to those, who did not ask me” [Rom. 10:20; cf. Isa. 65:1]. (#176 / 373)

Can. 4. If anyone contends that in order that we may be cleansed from sin, God waits for our good will, but does not acknowledge that even the wish to be purged is produced in us through the infusion and operation of the Holy Spirit, he opposes the Holy Spirit Himself, who says through Solomon: “Good will is prepared by the Lord” [Provo 8:35: LXX], and the Apostle who beneficially says: “It is God, who works in us both to will and to accomplish according to his good will” [Phil. 2:13]. (#177 / 374)

Can. 5. If anyone says, that just as the increase [of faith] so also the beginning of faith and the very desire of credulity, by which we believe in Him who justifies the impious, and (by which) we arrive at the regeneration of holy baptism (is) not through the gift of grace, that is, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit reforming our will from infidelity to faith, from impiety to piety, but is naturally in us, he is proved (to be) antagonistic to the doctrine of the Apostles, since blessed Paul says : We trust, that he who begins a good work in us, will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus [Phil. 1:6]; and the following: It was given to you for Christ not only that you may believe in Him, but also, that you may suffer tor Him [Phil. 1:29]; and: By grace you are made safe through faith, and this not of yourselves; for it is the gift of God [Eph. 2:8]. For those who say that faith, by which we believe in God, is natural, declare that all those who are alien to the Church of Christ are in a measure faithful [cf. St. Augustine]. (#178 / 375)

Can. 6. If anyone asserts that without the grace of God mercy is divinely given to us when we believe, will, desire, try, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, urge, but does not confess that through the infusion and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in us, it is brought about that we believe, wish, or are able to do all these things as we ought, and does not join either to human humility or obedience the help of grace, nor agree that it is the gift of His grace that we are obedient and humble, opposes the Apostle who says: W hat have you, that you have not received? [I Cor. 4:7J; and: By the grace of God I am that, which I am [I Cor. 15:10; cf. St. Augustine and St. Prosper of Aquitaine]. (#179 / 376)

Can. 7. If anyone affirms that without the illumination and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, — who gives to all sweetness in consenting to and believing in the truth,– through the strength of nature he can think anything good which pertains to the salvation of eternal life, as he should, or choose, or consent to salvation, that is to the evangelical proclamation, he is deceived by the heretical spirit, not understanding the voice of God speaking in the Gospel: “Without me you can do nothing” [John 15:5]; and that of the Apostle: Not that we are fit to think everything by ourselves as of ourselves, but our suffic1ency is from God [II Cor. 3:5; cf. St. Augustine]. (#180 / 377)

Can. 9. “The assistance of God. It is a divine gift, both when we think 182 rightly and when we restrain our feet from falsity and injustice; for as often as we do good, God operates in us and with us, that we may work” [St. Prosper]. (#182 / 379)

Can. 12.”God loves such as us. God loves us, such as we shall be by 185 His gift, not such as we are by our own merit” [St. Prosper]. (#185 / 382)

Can. 14. “No wretched person is freed from misery, however small, unless he is first reached by the mercy of God” [St. Prosper], just as the Psalmist says: Let thy mercy, Lord, speedily anticipate us [Ps. 78:8 J; and also: “My God, His mercy will prevent me” [Ps. 58:11].” (#187 / 384)

Can. 18. “That grace is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed; but grace, which is not due, precedes, that they may be done” [St. Prosper]. (#191 / 388)

Can. 19. “That no one is saved except by God’s mercy. Even if human nature remained in that integrity in which it was formed, it would in no way save itself without the help of its Creator; therefore, since without the grace of God it cannot guard the health which it received, how without the grace of God will it be able to recover what it has lost?” [St. Prosper]. (#192 / 389)

Can. 20. “That without God man can do no good. God does many good things in man, which man does not do; indeed man can do no good that God does not expect that man do” [St. Prosper]. (#193 / 390)

Can. 21. Nature and grace. Just as the Apostle most truly says to those, who, wishing to be justified in the law, have fallen even from grace: If justice is from the law, then Christ died in vain [Gal. 2:21]; so it is most truly said to those who think that grace, which the faith of Christ commends and obtains, is nature: If justice is through nature, then Christ died in vain. For the law was already here, and it did not justify; nature, too, was already present, and it did not justify. Therefore, Christ did not die in vain, that the law also might be fulfilled through Him, who said: I came not to destroy the law but to fulfill (it) [Matt. 5:17], and in order that nature ruined by Adam, might be repaired by Him, who said: He came to seek and to save that which had been lost [Luke 19:10]” [St. Prosper]. (#194 / 391)

We see, then, that grace alone and God’s mercy were no new things (Catholics are neither Pelagians nor Semi-Pelagians), putting the lie to the article’s ludicrous claim: “Salvation as a gift of grace and righteousness by faith were not understood by Christians until the Reformation.” An instant salvation — unable to be lost — by faith alone, however, was a novel and false idea. See:

Faith Alone: Development of Church Fathers & St. Augustine? [11-24-00]

Romans 2-4 & “Works of the Law”: Patristic Interpretation [2-16-01]

Church Fathers vs. the “Reformation Pillar” of “Faith Alone” [10-24-07]

Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages [2-10-08]

Justification: Not by Faith Alone, & Ongoing (Romans 4, James 2, and Abraham’s Multiple Justifications) [10-15-11]

Final Judgment Always Has to Do with Works and Never with “Faith Alone” [9-5-14]

Jesus vs. “Faith Alone” (Rich Young Ruler) [10-12-15]

“Catholic Justification” in James & Romans [11-18-15]

Philippians 2:12 & “Work[ing] Out” One’s Salvation [1-26-16]

“Faith Alone”?: Quick & Decisive Biblical Refutation [1-8-19]

Jesus: Faith + Works (Not Faith Alone) Leads to Salvation [8-1-19]

Defense of Bible Passages vs. Eternal Security & Faith Alone (vs. Jason Engwer) [8-12-20]

Banzoli’s 45 “Faith Alone” Passages; My 200 Biblical Disproofs [6-16-22]

Luther’s Translation of “Faith Alone” in Romans 3:28 (Also: Did “Early Erasmus” Agree with Luther?) [12-7-22]

Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [8-30-23]

Abraham and Ongoing Justification by Faith and Works [National Catholic Register, 9-19-23]

Sola Fide (Faith Alone) Nonexistent Before the Protestant Revolt in 1517 (Geisler & McGrath) [Catholic365, 10-31-23]

Bible / Faith “Alone” vs. The Fathers (vs. Gavin Ortlund) [2-13-24]

Abraham’s Justification By Faith & Works (vs. Jordan Cooper) + Catholic Exegesis Regarding St. Paul’s Specific Meaning of “Works” in Romans 4 [3-1-24]

Church Fathers vs. “Faith Alone”: Handy Capsule Proofs [4-8-24]

16 Church Fathers vs. Faith Alone [National Catholic Register, 4-23-24]

14 More Church Fathers vs. Faith Alone [National Catholic Register, 4-30-24]

St. Thomas Aquinas provided great insight on these matters in the 13th century (still nearly 300 years before Luther). Here are some of the relevant sub-topics from my book, The Quotable Summa Theologica (Jan. 2013, 200 pages):

Grace Alone (for Justification and Salvation)

Now it is manifest that human virtues perfect man according as it is natural for him to be moved by his reason in his interior and exterior actions. Consequently man needs yet higher perfections, whereby to be disposed to be moved by God. These perfections are called gifts, not only because they are infused by God, but also because by them man is disposed to become amenable to the Divine inspiration, according to Is. 50:5: “The Lord . . . hath opened my ear, and I do not resist; I have not gone back.” Even the Philosopher says in the chapter On Good Fortune (Ethic. Eudem., vii, 8) that for those who are moved by Divine instinct, there is no need to take counsel according to human reason, but only to follow their inner promptings, since they are moved by a principle higher than human reason. This then is what some say, viz. that the gifts perfect man for acts which are higher than acts of virtue. (ST [Summa Theologica] 1-2, q. 68, a. 1c)

. . . in matters directed to the supernatural end, to which man’s reason moves him, according as it is, in a manner, and imperfectly, informed by the theological virtues, the motion of reason does not suffice, unless it receive in addition the prompting or motion of the Holy Ghost, according to Rm. 8:14,17: “Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are sons of God . . . and if sons, heirs also”: and Ps. 142:10: “Thy good Spirit shall lead me into the right land,” because, to wit, none can receive the inheritance of that land of the Blessed, except he be moved and led thither by the Holy Ghost. Therefore, in order to accomplish this end, it is necessary for man to have the gift of the Holy Ghost. (ST 1-2, q. 68, a. 2c)

By the theological and moral virtues, man is not so perfected in respect of his last end, as not to stand in continual need of being moved by the yet higher promptings of the Holy Ghost . . . (ST 1-2, q. 68, a. 2, ad 2)

. . . man, by his natural endowments, cannot produce meritorious works proportionate to everlasting life; and for this a higher force is needed, viz. the force of grace. And thus without grace man cannot merit everlasting life . . . (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 5c)

It is written (Jn. 6:44): “No man can come to Me except the Father, Who hath sent Me, draw him.” But if man could prepare himself, he would not need to be drawn by another. Hence man cannot prepare himself without the help of grace. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 6, sed contra)

. . . since God is the First Mover, simply, it is by His motion that everything seeks to be likened to God in its own way. Hence Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that “God turns all to Himself.” But He directs righteous men to Himself as to a special end, which they seek, and to which they wish to cling, according to Ps. 72:28, “it is good for Me to adhere to my God.” And that they are “turned” to God can only spring from God’s having “turned” them. Now to prepare oneself for grace is, as it were, to be turned to God; just as, whoever has his eyes turned away from the light of the sun, prepares himself to receive the sun’s light, by turning his eyes towards the sun. Hence it is clear that man cannot prepare himself to receive the light of grace except by the gratuitous help of God moving him inwardly. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 6c)

Man’s turning to God is by free-will; and thus man is bidden to turn himself to God. But free-will can only be turned to God, when God turns it, according to Jer. 31:18: “Convert me and I shall be converted, for Thou art the Lord, my God”; and Lam. 5:21: “Convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted.” (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 6, ad 1)

It is the part of man to prepare his soul, since he does this by his free-will. And yet he does not do this without the help of God moving him, and drawing him to Himself . . . (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 6, ad 4)

The Apostle says (Gal. 2:21; Cf. Gal. 3:21): “For if there had been a law given which could give life—then Christ died in vain,” i.e. to no purpose. Hence with equal reason, if man has a nature, whereby he can he justified, “Christ died in vain,” i.e. to no purpose. But this cannot fittingly be said. Therefore by himself he cannot be justified, i.e. he cannot return from a state of sin to a state of justice. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 7, sed contra)

Man by himself can no wise rise from sin without the help of grace. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 7c)

To man is bidden that which pertains to the act of free-will, as this act is required in order that man should rise from sin. Hence when it is said, “Arise, and Christ shall enlighten thee,” we are not to think that the complete rising from sin precedes the enlightenment of grace; but that when man by his free-will, moved by God, strives to rise from sin, he receives the light of justifying grace. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 7, ad 1)

. . . man cannot be restored by himself; but he requires the light of grace to be poured upon him anew, as if the soul were infused into a dead body for its resurrection. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 7, ad 2)

The Pelagians held that this cause was nothing else than man’s free-will: and consequently they said that the beginning of faith is from ourselves, inasmuch as, to wit, it is in our power to be ready to assent to things which are of faith, but that the consummation of faith is from God, Who proposes to us the things we have to believe. But this is false, for, since man, by assenting to matters of faith, is raised above his nature, this must needs accrue to him from some supernatural principle moving him inwardly; and this is God. Therefore faith, as regards the assent which is the chief act of faith, is from God moving man inwardly by grace. (ST 2-2, q. 6, a. 1c)

To believe does indeed depend on the will of the believer: but man’s will needs to be prepared by God with grace, in order that he may be raised to things which are above his nature . . . (ST 2-2, q. 6, a. 1, ad 3)

Justification by Faith

. . . if we suppose, as indeed it is a truth of faith, that the beginning of faith is in us from God, the first act must flow from grace; and thus it cannot be meritorious of the first grace. Therefore man is justified by faith, not as though man, by believing, were to merit justification, but that, he believes, whilst he is being justified; inasmuch as a movement of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly . . . (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 5, ad 1)

Justification, Imputed (Initial); of the “Ungodly”

. . . this justice may be brought about in man by a movement from one contrary to the other, and thus justification implies a transmutation from the state of injustice to the aforesaid state of justice. And it is thus we are now speaking of the justification of the ungodly, according to the Apostle (Rm. 4:5): “But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in Him that justifieth the ungodly,” etc. (ST 1-2, q. 113, a. 1c)

As God’s love consists not merely in the act of the Divine will but also implies a certain effect of grace, . . . so likewise, when God does not impute sin to a man, there is implied a certain effect in him to whom the sin is not imputed; for it proceeds from the Divine love, that sin is not imputed to a man by God. (ST 1-2, q. 113, a. 2, ad 2)

The justification of the ungodly is brought about by God moving man to justice. For He it is “that justifieth the ungodly” according to Rm. 4:5. Now God moves everything in its own manner, just as we see that in natural things, what is heavy and what is light are moved differently, on account of their diverse natures. Hence He moves man to justice according to the condition of his human nature. But it is man’s proper nature to have free-will. Hence in him who has the use of reason, God’s motion to justice does not take place without a movement of the free-will; but He so infuses the gift of justifying grace that at the same time He moves the free-will to accept the gift of grace, in such as are capable of being moved thus. (ST 1-2, q. 113, a. 3c)

. . . a movement of free-will is required for the justification of the ungodly, inasmuch as man’s mind is moved by God. Now God moves man’s soul by turning it to Himself according to Ps. 84:7 (Septuagint): “Thou wilt turn us, O God, and bring us to life.” Hence for the justification of the ungodly a movement of the mind is required, by which it is turned to God. Now the first turning to God is by faith, according to Heb. 11:6: “He that cometh to God must believe that He is.” Hence a movement of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly. (ST 1-2, q. 113, a. 4c)

The justification of the ungodly is called the remission of sins . . . (ST 1-2, q. 113, a. 6, ad 1)

The justification of the ungodly is caused by the justifying grace of the Holy Spirit. Now the Holy Spirit comes to men’s minds suddenly, according to Acts 2:2: “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a mighty wind coming,” upon which the gloss says that “the grace of the Holy Ghost knows no tardy efforts.” Hence the justification of the ungodly is not successive, but instantaneous. (ST 1-2, q. 113, a. 7, sed contra)

Works, Good (in Grace)

. . . grace is the principle of all our good works . . . (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 5c)

Man’s every good work proceeds from the first grace as from its principle . . . (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 5, ad 3)

In the citations above, St. Thomas illustrates instances where Catholics and Protestants essentially agree. But St. Thomas was, of course, an orthodox Catholic, so he also believed in the following things, that Protestants reject:

Apostasy (Falling Away from the Faith or Salvation)

Some have said that none could be blotted out of the book of life as a matter of fact, but only in the opinion of men. For it is customary in the Scriptures to say that something is done when it becomes known. Thus some are said to be written in the book of life, inasmuch as men think they are written therein, on account of the present righteousness they see in them; but when it becomes evident, either in this world or in the next, that they have fallen from that state of righteousness, they are then said to be blotted out. . . . the book of life is the inscription of those ordained to eternal life, to which one is directed from two sources; namely, from predestination, which direction never fails, and from grace; for whoever has grace, by this very fact becomes fitted for eternal life. This direction fails sometimes; because some are directed by possessing grace, to obtain eternal life, yet they fail to obtain it through mortal sin. . . . Those, however, who are ordained to eternal life, not through divine predestination, but through grace, are said to be written in the book of life not simply, but relatively, . . . God knows one is first ordained to eternal life, and afterwards not ordained when he falls from grace. (ST 1, q. 24, a. 3c)

But if he give up the faith, then he seems to turn away from God altogether: and consequently, apostasy simply and absolutely is that whereby a man withdraws from the faith, and is called “apostasy of perfidy.” In this way apostasy, simply so called, pertains to unbelief. (ST 2-2, q. 12, a. 1c)

For since faith is the first foundation of things to be hoped for, and since, without faith it is “impossible to please God”; when once faith is removed, man retains nothing that may be useful for the obtaining of eternal salvation, for which reason it is written (Prov. 6:12): “A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man”: because faith is the life of the soul, according to Rm. 1:17: “The just man liveth by faith.” (ST 2-2, q. 12, a. 1, ad 2)

. . . it is written (2 Pet. 2:21): “It had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them.” Now those who know not the way of truth will be punished for ever. Therefore Christians who have turned back after knowing it will also be punished for ever. (ST Suppl., q. 99, a. 4, sed contra)

Grace: Degrees or Greater Measure of

It is written (Eph. 4:7): “But to every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ.” Now what is given in measure, is not given to all equally. Hence all have not an equal grace. (ST 1-2, q. 112, a. 4, sed contra)

Augustine says (super Ep. Joan.; cf. Ep. clxxxvi) that “charity merits increase, and being increased merits to be perfected.” Hence the increase of grace or charity falls under merit. (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 8, sed contra)

By every meritorious act a man merits the increase of grace, equally with the consummation of grace which is eternal life. (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 8, ad 3)

Justification, Infused (Sanctification)

Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xxvi) that “as the eye of the body though most healthy cannot see unless it is helped by the brightness of light, so, neither can a man, even if he is most righteous, live righteously unless he be helped by the eternal light of justice.” But justification is by grace, according to Rm. 3:24: “Being justified freely by His grace.” Hence even a man who already possesses grace needs a further assistance of grace in order to live righteously. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 9, sed contra)

. . . in order to live righteously a man needs a twofold help of God—first, a habitual gift whereby corrupted human nature is healed, and after being healed is lifted up so as to work deeds meritoriously of everlasting life, which exceed the capability of nature. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 9c)

. . . man, even when possessed of grace, needs perseverance to be given to him by God. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 10, sed contra)

Grace causes faith not only when faith begins anew to be in a man, but also as long as faith lasts. . . . God is always working man’s justification, even as the sun is always lighting up the air. Hence grace is not less effective when it comes to a believer than when it comes to an unbeliever: since it causes faith in both, in the former by confirming and perfecting it, in the latter by creating it anew. (ST 2-2, q. 4, a. 4, ad 3)

A thing is impure through being mixed with baser things: for silver is not called impure, when mixed with gold, which betters it, but when mixed with lead or tin. Now it is evident that the rational creature is more excellent than all transient and corporeal creatures; so that it becomes impure through subjecting itself to transient things by loving them. From this impurity the rational creature is purified by means of a contrary movement, namely, by tending to that which is above it, viz. God. The first beginning of this movement is faith: since “he that cometh to God must believe that He is,” according to Heb. 11:6. Hence the first beginning of the heart’s purifying is faith; and if this be perfected through being quickened by charity, the heart will be perfectly purified thereby. (ST 2-2, q. 7, a. 2c)

The Apostle says (Heb. 9:14): “The blood of Christ, Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God.” But dead works denote sins. Therefore the priesthood of Christ has the power to cleanse from sins. (ST 3, q. 22, a. 3, sed contra)

Christ’s Passion is applied to us even through faith, that we may share in its fruits, according to Rom. 3:25: “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood.” But the faith through which we are cleansed from sin is not “lifeless faith,” which can exist even with sin, but “faith living” through charity; that thus Christ’s Passion may be applied to us, not only as to our minds, but also as to our hearts. And even in this way sins are forgiven through the power of the Passion of Christ. (ST 3, q. 49, a. 1, ad 5)

Merit

It is written (Eccles. 12:14): “All things that are done, God will bring into judgment . . . whether it be good or evil.” Now judgment implies retribution, in respect of which we speak of merit and demerit. Therefore every human action, both good and evil, acquires merit or demerit in God’s sight. (ST 1-2, q. 21, a. 4, sed contra)

. . . our actions, good and evil, acquire merit or demerit, in the sight of God. On the part of God Himself, inasmuch as He is man’s last end; and it is our duty to refer all our actions to the last end, . . . Consequently, whoever does an evil deed, not referable to God, does not give God the honor due to Him as our last end. . . . Now God is the governor and ruler of the whole universe, . . . and especially of rational creatures. Consequently it is evident that human actions acquire merit or demerit in reference to Him: else it would follow that human actions are no business of God’s. (ST 1-2, q. 21, a. 4c)

Man is so moved, as an instrument, by God, that, at the same time, he moves himself by his free-will, . . . Consequently, by his action, he acquires merit or demerit in God’s sight. (ST 1-2, q. 21, a. 4, ad 2)

Augustine is speaking here of that hope whereby we look to gain future bliss through merits which we have already; and this is not without charity. (ST 1-2, q. 65, a. 4, ad 3)

. . . to fulfil the commandments of the Law, in their due way, whereby their fulfilment may be meritorious, requires grace. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 5, ad 2)

A certain preparation of man for grace is simultaneous with the infusion of grace; and this operation is meritorious, not indeed of grace, which is already possessed—but of glory which is not yet possessed. . . . merit can only arise from grace . . . (ST 1-2, q. 112, a. 2, ad 1)

Now it is clear that between God and man there is the greatest inequality: for they are infinitely apart, and all man’s good is from God. Hence there can be no justice of absolute equality between man and God, but only of a certain proportion, inasmuch as both operate after their own manner. Now the manner and measure of human virtue is in man from God. Hence man’s merit with God only exists on the presupposition of the Divine ordination, so that man obtains from God, as a reward of his operation, what God gave him the power of operation for, even as natural things by their proper movements and operations obtain that to which they were ordained by God; differently, indeed, since the rational creature moves itself to act by its free-will, hence its action has the character of merit, which is not so in other creatures. (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 1c)

. . . a man can merit nothing from God except by His gift, which the Apostle expresses aptly saying (Rm. 11:35): “Who hath first given to Him, and recompense shall be made to him?” (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 2, ad 3)

Man’s meritorious work may be considered in two ways: first, as it proceeds from free-will; secondly, as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost. . . . If, however, we speak of a meritorious work, inasmuch as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting, it is meritorious of life everlasting condignly. For thus the value of its merit depends upon the power of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting according to Jn. 4:14: “Shall become in him a fount of water springing up into life everlasting.” (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 3c)

. . . our actions are meritorious in so far as they proceed from the free-will moved with grace by God. Therefore every human act proceeding from the free-will, if it be referred to God, can be meritorious. Now the act of believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the Divine truth at the command of the will moved by the grace of God, so that it is subject to the free-will in relation to God; and consequently the act of faith can be meritorious. (ST 2-2, q. 2, a. 9c)

Salvation, Instantaneous (Falsity of)

But just as eternal life is not given at once, but in its own time, so neither is grace increased at once, but in its own time, viz. when a man is sufficiently disposed for the increase of grace. (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 8, ad 3)

. . . a man hopes to obtain eternal life, not by his own power (since this would be an act of presumption), but with the help of grace; and if he perseveres therein he will obtain eternal life surely and infallibly. (ST 2-2, q. 1, a. 3, ad 1)

. . . perseverance . . . may be taken to denote the act of perseverance enduring until death: and in this sense it needs not only habitual grace, but also the gratuitous help of God sustaining man in good until the end of life, . . . Because, since the free-will is changeable by its very nature, which changeableness is not taken away from it by the habitual grace bestowed in the present life, it is not in the power of the free-will, albeit repaired by grace, to abide unchangeably in good, though it is in its power to choose this: for it is often in our power to choose yet not to accomplish. (ST 2-2, q. 137, a. 4c)

Man is able by himself to fall into sin, but he cannot by himself arise from sin without the help of grace. Hence by falling into sin, so far as he is concerned man makes himself to be persevering in sin, unless he be delivered by God’s grace. On the other hand, by doing good he does not make himself to be persevering in good, because he is able, by himself, to sin: wherefore he needs the help of grace for that end. (ST 2-2, q. 137, a. 4, ad 3)

Synergy: Cooperation with God’s Grace as “Co-Laborers” and Secondary Mediators

One is said to be helped by another in two ways; in one way, inasmuch as he receives power from him: and to be helped thus belongs to the weak; but this cannot be said of God, and thus we are to understand, “Who hath helped the Spirit of the Lord?” In another way one is said to be helped by a person through whom he carries out his work, as a master through a servant. In this way God is helped by us; inasmuch as we execute His orders, according to 1 Cor. 3:9: “We are God’s co-adjutors.” Nor is this on account of any defect in the power of God, but because He employs intermediary causes, in order that the beauty of order may be preserved in the universe; and also that He may communicate to creatures the dignity of causality. (ST 1, q. 23, a. 8, ad 2)

This argument holds, in the case of an instrument which has no faculty of action, but only of being acted upon. But man is not an instrument of that kind; for he is so acted upon, by the Holy Ghost, that he also acts himself, in so far as he has a free-will. (ST 1-2, q. 68, a. 3, ad 2)

. . . we may say that, as regards the infusion of the gifts, the art is on the part of the Holy Ghost, Who is the principal mover, and not on the part of men, who are His organs when He moves them. (ST 1-2, q. 68, a. 4, ad 1)

The mind of man is not moved by the Holy Ghost, unless in some way it be united to Him: even as the instrument is not moved by the craftsman, unless there by contact or some other kind of union between them. (ST 1-2, q. 68, a. 4, ad 3)

If, however, by man’s fruit we understand a product of man, then human actions are called fruits: because operation is the second act of the operator, and gives pleasure if it is suitable to him. If then man’s operation proceeds from man in virtue of his reason, it is said to be the fruit of his reason: but if it proceeds from him in respect of a higher power, which is the power of the Holy Ghost, then man’s operation is said to be the fruit of the Holy Ghost, as of a Divine seed, for it is written (1 Jn. 3:9): “Whosoever is born of God, committeth no sin, for His seed abideth in him.” (ST 1-2, q. 70, a. 1c)

. . . our works, in so far as they are produced by the Holy Ghost working in us, are fruits . . . (ST 1-2, q. 70, a. 1, ad 1)

Man, by his will, does works meritorious of everlasting life; but . . . for this it is necessary that the will of man should be prepared with grace by God. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 5, ad 1)

. . . if we speak of grace as it signifies a help from God to move us to good, no preparation is required on man’s part, that, as it were, anticipates the Divine help, but rather, every preparation in man must be by the help of God moving the soul to good. And thus even the good movement of the free-will, whereby anyone is prepared for receiving the gift of grace is an act of the free-will moved by God. And thus man is said to prepare himself, according to Prov. 16:1: “It is the part of man to prepare the soul”; yet it is principally from God, Who moves the free-will. Hence it is said that man’s will is prepared by God, and that man’s steps are guided by God. (ST 1-2, q. 112, a. 2c)

God ordained human nature to attain the end of eternal life, not by its own strength, but by the help of grace; and in this way its act can be meritorious of eternal life. (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 2, ad 1)

It is not on account of any defect in God’s power that He works by means of second causes, but it is for the perfection of the order of the universe, and the more manifold outpouring of His goodness on things, through His bestowing on them not only the goodness which is proper to them, but also the faculty of causing goodness in others. Even so it is not through any defect in His mercy, that we need to bespeak His clemency through the prayers of the saints, but to the end that the aforesaid order in things be observed. (ST Suppl., q. 72, a. 2, ad 1)

Theosis; Divinization

Nothing can act beyond its species, since the cause must always be more powerful than its effect. Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle. (ST 1-2, q. 112, a. 1c)

. . . the worth of the work depends on the dignity of grace, whereby a man, being made a partaker of the Divine Nature, is adopted as a son of God, to whom the inheritance is due by right of adoption, according to Rm. 8:17: “If sons, heirs also.” (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 3c)

The head and members are as one mystic person; and therefore Christ’s satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as being His members. (ST 3, q. 48, a. 2, ad 1)

. . . grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of the Divine Nature, according to 2 Pet. 1:4: “He hath given us most great and precious promises; that we may be partakers of the Divine Nature.” (ST 3, q. 62, a. 1c)

. . . one can be changed into Christ, and be incorporated in Him by mental desire, even without receiving this sacrament [the Eucharist]. (ST 3, q. 73, a. 3, ad 2)

Now, granted, if we are talking about 16th century Catholics in practice, there was a great deal of ignorance and much to be desired. It wasn’t one of the Catholic Church’s best times. But when analyzing any Christian belief-system, we can only look at what their confessions and creeds teach. We can’t ultimately go by the man in the pub or old ladies with purple tennis shoes (as if they are the best representatives of theological thought). We compare Luther and Calvin and Protestant creeds and arguments with Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas and ecumenical councils. All that Luther introduced (considered his great insight) were false beliefs and novelties.

But grace alone and God’s mercy and enabling of all good things had been there since the beginning of Christianity, and articulated in a more advanced form by Catholic anti-Pelagian writers like St. Augustine, and in the 5th and 6th centuries in Catholic councils confirmed by popes. Now that folks have had a chance to consider both sides in the dispute, they can get a much more accurate (and I think, also more interesting) picture of the actual historical and theological realities in play. The more we learn, the more we realize that the two sides are closer in thinking than most on either side imagined.

Photo credit: The Augustinian Monastery in Wittenberg, Saxony, where Martin Luther lived, including the tower where he had a “new” insight about justification. From the article, “Luther’s Tower Experience: Martin Luther Discovers the True Meaning of Righteousness by Faith,” 1-13-17.

Summary: Analysis of Luther’s famous “tower experience” of 1519 where he arrived at a Protestant understanding of justification, & Catholic thinking (early Church & Aquinas).