2024-06-10T13:49:09-04:00

Photo credit: Lucas Cranach the Elder, Madonna under the fir tree (1509) [pubic domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received a 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!

***

Here are two lengthy excerpts from Luther’s writings in which he expresses his agreement — along with virtually all of the early Protestant leaders — with the biblical, traditional, patristic, and Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Greater context for the key statements has been kindly provided by the anti-Catholic polemicist and self-proclaimed expert on Luther, James Swan (thanks much!). None of the bolding is in Luther’s original.

The devil is doing his worst against this article of the divinity and the humanity of Christ, which he finds intolerable. Christ must be true God, in accord with the powerful testimony of Scripture and particularly of St. Paul, who declares that in Him the whole fullness of the Deity dwells bodily (Col. 2:9); otherwise we are damned forever. But in His humanity He must also be a true and natural son of the Virgin Mary, from whom He inherited flesh and blood as any other child does from its mother. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, who came upon her and overshadowed her with the power of the Most High, according to Luke 1:35. However, Mary, the pure virgin, had to contribute of her seed and of the natural blood that coursed from her heart. From her He derived everything, except sin, that a child naturally and normally receives from its mother. This we must believe if we are not to be lost. If, as the Manichaeans allege, He is not a real and natural man, born of Mary, then He is not of our flesh and blood. Then He has nothing in common with us; then we can derive no comfort from Him. However, we do not let ourselves be troubled by the blasphemies which the devil, through the mouths of his lying servants, speaks against Christ the Lord—now against His divinity, now against His humanity—and by the attacks which he then makes against Christ’s office and work. But we cling to the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). Their testimony about Christ is clear. He is our Brother; we are members of His body, flesh and bone of His flesh and bone. According to His humanity, He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb (of which Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to her in Luke 1:42: “Blessed is the fruit of your womb!”). This was without the co-operation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. Everything else that a mother imparts to a child was imparted by Mary, the mother of God’s eternal Son. Even the milk He sucked had no other source than the breasts of this holy and pure mother. (1st Sermon on the Gospel of John, July 1537, in Luther’s Works, vol. 22, 23-24)

Now the question may occupy us how Christ could have brothers, since He was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him. Some say that Joseph had been married before his marriage to Mary, and that the children of this first wife were later called Christ’s brothers. Others say that Joseph had another wife simultaneously with Mary, for it was permissible for the Jews to have two wives. In the Book of Ruth we hear that a poor daughter was often left on the shelf (Ruth 3:10 ff.). This displeased God; therefore He commanded that such daughters be provided for. Thus it became incumbent upon the nearest relative or friend to marry such a poor orphan girl. Mary, too, was a poor little orphan, whom Joseph was obligated to marry. She was so poor that no one else wanted her. Any children born to Joseph by other wives would have been half brothers of Christ. This is the explanation offered by some. But I am inclined to agree with those who declare that “brothers” really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. Be that as it may, it matters little. It neither adds to nor detracts from faith. It is immaterial whether these men were Christ’s cousins or His brothers begotten by Joseph. In any event, they moved to Capernaum with Christ, where they took charge of the parish. We may infer from this text that they were a poor little group. After Joseph’s death they probably found it impossible to support themselves in Nazareth and for this reason left and moved to Capernaum. But just how and why this happened is a moot question. Christ was born in Bethlehem and reared in Nazareth, and now He is residing as a pastor in Capernaum. This town is His parish. He chose it as the place where He was to reside as bishop and as burgher, just as our pastor dwells here and is our bishop. Christ did not remain in Capernaum permanently. No, He wandered about. He returned to Nazareth and journeyed through all of Galilee, preaching and performing miracles; and then He would return to His abode in Capernaum. The other prophets did the same. Samuel lived in Ramah, and from there he “went on a circuit” to preach in the adjacent countryside (1 Sam. 7:16–17). (16th Sermon on the Gospel of John, January 1538, in Luther’s Works, vol. 22, 214-215)

Luther also stated that Mary “was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ” (That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, May 1523, in Luther’s Works, vol. 45, 206).  This is the miraculous in partu birth of Christ, in which the birth was completely miraculous, and not natural childbirth by the usual physical, biological process.  For more on this, see my article, Luther & Mary’s Virginity During Childbirth (The Miraculous Birth of Jesus [“in Partu”] Without Pain) [10-12-11; additions on 9-19-15].

As an extra bonus, here are some remarks by Luther concerning Mary being the Mother of God:

We must hold to this faith in opposition to the heretics. The Turk contends that Mary was not the mother of the Son of God. The Nestorians said that Mary was not the mother of God but only of the man Jesus, who by nature was only her son. They made two sons out of one. But there is only one Son; and yet there are two natures, which gave Mary the right to say: “This Son Jesus, whom I bore and suckled on my breasts, is the eternal God, born of the Father in eternity, and also my Son.” And God says likewise: “Mary’s Son is My only Son.” Thus Mary is the mother of God. And Christ, together with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, is very God from eternity who became man in time. So God the Father does not have a son apart from Mary’s, nor does Mary have a son apart from God the Father’s. This is the foundation on which our faith rests: that Jesus Christ has two natures even though He is one indivisible Person. There are not two sons and two persons; there is one Son and one Person. (27th Sermon on the Gospel of John, in Luther’s Works, vol. 22, 323-324)

*

***
*
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.

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 InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Photo credit: Lucas Cranach the Elder, Madonna under the fir tree (1509) [pubic domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Martin Luther believed in the biblical, patristic, and Catholic doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, including during Jesus’ miraculous birth (i.e., an intact hymen).

2024-06-04T17:44:13-04:00

“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!

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.

***

The Saints as friends of God ought to be implored to intercede for us, and although the Saints are not to be worshiped with latria, because this is owed to God alone, yet they are to be venerated with dulia. John 12:26: “If any man minister to me, him will my Father who is in heaven honor.” If therefore God honors the saints why should we not honor the saints? “So long as you do this to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it unto me” [Mt 25:40]. Therefore honor shown to the saints is shown to God.

“But to me thy friends, 0 God, are made exceedingly honorable; their principality is exceedingly strengthened” [Ps 139:17].

“If Moses and Samuel shall stand before me, my soul is towards this people” [Jer 15:1]. . . . There Jeremiah is manifestly hinting that the saints pray for the people.

“Call now if there be any that will answer you, and turn to someone of the saints” [Job 5:1]. These words, indeed, although Eliphaz the Temanite spoke them to Job, yet Job did not rebuke them, but received them as the salutary advice of a friend. Thus also Elihu said: “If there shall be an angel speaking for him, one among like ones, to declare man’s uprightness, he (that is, God) shall have mercy on him, and shall say: Deliver him, that he may not go down to corruption, I have found wherein I may be merciful to him” [Job 33:23f].

“Go to my servant Job, and offer for yourselves a holocaust. . . his face I shall accept, that folly may not be imputed to you . . .” [Job 42:8]. And later: “The Lord also was turned toward the penance of Job, when the latter prayed for his friends [Job 42:10].

Jacob said: “. . . and let my name be called upon them, and the names of my fathers Abraham, and Isaac . . .” [Gen 48:16].

Moses said to him: “Let thy anger cease, and be appeased upon the wickedness of thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel … to whom thou swarest by thy own self, saying: I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven” etc. [Ex 32:12f]. And there follows: “The Lord was appeased upon the wickedness of his people” [cf. Ex 32:14]. Azarias in the fiery furnace prayed, saying: “Deliver us not up for ever . . . for thy name’s sake, and abolish not thy covenant. And take not away thy mercy from us for the sake of Abraham thy beloved, and Isaac thy servant, and Israel thy holy one, to whom thou hast spoken, promising that thou wouldst multiply their seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is on the sea shore” [Dan 3:34-35]. And he was freed with his companions from the fiery furnace.

“O Lord Almighty, God of Israel, hear now the prayer of the dead of Israel and their sons who have sinned before thee” [Bar 4 3:4], etc.

“Judas Maccabeus saw Onias extending his hands to pray for the people of the Jews; after this he saw another man wonderful in age and glory, concerning whom Onias said: he is the lover of the brethren and of the people of Israel, who prays much for the people and the whole holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God” [2 Macc 15:12-14].

If the fathers of the Old Testament in limbo, not yet blessed with the clear vision of the divine countenance, were praying for their own, how much more are the saints in eternal blessedness contemplating ceaselessly God face to face, to be believed to be praying for us.

“In as much as you have done to one of the least, my brothers, you have done it unto me” [Mt 25:45]. Therefore if honor is shown to the saints, honor will be shown to God.

“For this every saint will pray to thee in a suitable time” [Ps 37:6]. The Hebrews read “every merciful one”: the blessed moreover are saints and merciful.

Absalom, reconciled to his father yet for two years stopping in Jerusalem, did not see the face of his father [2 K 14:24ff]. Thus the sinner reconciled to God does not immediately present himself to God, but through mediators and intercessors.

Solomon ordered a throne to be placed for his mother next to his own [1 K 2:19]. The true peacemaking Solomon, Christ, honoring his mother, does the same thing. . . .

All honor which we direct to the divine Virgin redounds to Christ, Son of God and of the Virgin: we honor the Virgin as mother in the Son, and the Son in the Virgin mother.  . . .

The angels pray for us: “The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear him, and shall deliver them” [Ps 34:8].

“For he has given his angels charge over you, to guard your ways” [Ps 91:11].

The angel prays for the Jewish people: “0 Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Judah, with which thou hast been angry? . . . And the Lord answered the angel . . . good, comfortable words” [Zech 1:12f].

“The four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials, full of odors, which are the prayers of the saints” [Rev 5:8]. ” . . . the angel stood before the altar, having a golden censer, and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense from the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel” [Rev 8:3f].

“Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who shall receive the inheritances of salvation?” [Heb 1:14]. Therefore angels support us: why then is it not permitted to call upon their support [suffragia] and ministry?

And the same reason applies to the saints as to the angels whose equals they are in the kingdom of heaven [Lk 20:36; Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25].

“No word overcame him (Elisha), and after death his body prophesied; in his life he did great wonders, and in death he wrought miracles” [Ecclus 38:14f].

1. Christ intercedes for us according to his humanity before God the Father. “For Christ Jesus makes intercession for us” [cf. Heb 7:25].

“Jesus has an everlasting priesthood, whereby he is able also to save forever, those who come to God by him, always living to make intercession for us” [Heb 7:24f].

“But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: and he is our propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world” [1 Jn 2:1f].

If therefore Christ as head prays for us, why not also the saints his members, (who conform themselves to Christ) asking with him[?] . . . 

If the living pray for one another, why do the blessed dead not also do this, who are more perfect in charity and more powerful with God and purer in mind? . . . God wills to be called upon through his saints, “I sought among them for a man who might set up a hedge and stand in a gap before me in favor of the land, that I might not destroy it, and I found none” [Ez 22:30].

[Objection] Christ alone, God, is to be called on because he alone is sufficient. He alone is most generous and most merciful, loving us more than all saints do. “If you ask the Father anything in my name, he will give it you” [Jn 16:23]. “Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find” [Lk 11:9]. “All things whatever you shall ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive” [Mt 21:22]. “Let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of his grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid” [Heb 4:16].

[Reply] We confess that what is to be prayed for is to be prayed in the name of Jesus, is to be prayed for with assurance, yet that does not exclude the saints, because also through the saints as members we pray in the name of Jesus their head. Hence the Church concludes that the collects of the saints are through Christ our Lord. And although God is best and most merciful, yet he is also most orderly, disposes all things sweetly, and draws the lower things through the middle things to the higher things, as Dionysius says.

[Objection] “There is one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus” [1 Tim 2:5]. Why then do we want to make from among the saints
more mediators?

[Reply] There is one mediator of redemption, Jesus Christ, because he alone has redeemed the human race; there is no other name under heaven in whom we are to be saved, but there are very many mediators of intercession. Therefore there is one mediator through redemption, just as also there is one savior. For he alone is the good shepherd who has given his life as redemption for many. But there are many mediators through intercession, just as also Scripture mentions very many saviors. Moses says “I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you” [Deut 5:5]. “Likewise he raised them up a savior [RSV: “deliverer”]  Othoniel” [Judges 3:9]. . . .

***

We honor, venerate, invoke . . . God and His saints, yet in an unequal manner. Him (because He is first and beginning of being and conserving and governing for all, and alone gives grace and glory) we worship with latria, which is owed to Him alone in accordance with the Scripture: “You shall adore the Lord your God, and Him alone you shall serve” (Dt 6:13; Mt 4:10). And again: “To God alone be honor and glory” (1 Tim 1:17).

And with this adoration Mordecai would not adore Haman, fearing lest he might transfer to a man the honor owed to God (Esther 3:2). And the angel forbade John from wanting to worship him (Rev 22:8 f). The saints as intercessors and patrons, not as conferers of grace and glory, but (by their merits and prayers) as obtainers of requests with God, and thus far beneath God, we venerate, honor, and invoke with dulia. (which is shown to excellent creatures as a sign of reverence) but the Virgin, bearer of God, by hyperdulia. . . .

In the litany the Church teaches the difference between the invocation or adoration of God and of the saints, where first of all the Holy Trinity is invoked under the distinction of persons and the unity of essence, to have mercy upon us. Then the intercession of the saints is implored, to pray for us. Finally, the litany returns to God that He may deign to hearken to us while the saints are praying together with us, may free us from evil, grant us grace, and bestow eternal life. The Church observes a similar form of prayer in the . . . “collects” which are said on the festivals of the saints, where we implore divine clemency through the merits and intercessions of the saints. It concludes with: “Through our Lord Jesus Christ, who with thee lives and reigns” etc.

The invocation of the saints is not explicitly enjoined in the Scriptures. Not in the Old Testament: where the people had otherwise slipped into idolatry, and the fathers were in limbo, not yet blessed. “Abraham has not known us’, and Israel was ignorant of us” (Is 63:16). Under the Gospel too there was no precept, lest the Gentiles being converted might believe themselves once more led back into the cult of those born of earth, so they would have worshiped (according to the old custom) the saints not as patrons, but as gods: just as they wanted at Lycaonia to sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:10). Now if the Apostles and Evangelists had taught that the saints were to be venerated, they would have been blamed for arrogance, as if they themselves had sought that glory after death. Therefore he would not teach by express scriptures the veneration of saints, . . .

*

***
*
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.

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 InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Photo credit: Transfiguration of Jesus [Elijah and Moses also appearing], by Carl Heinrich Bloch (1834-1890) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: One of a series of posts documenting the Catholic apologetics efforts of Johann Eck (1486-1543) against Protestantism. This entry addresses veneration of saints.

2024-06-04T17:46:33-04:00

“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!

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: After guilt has been forgiven through contrition and absolution, the penitent ought to make satisfaction for penalty.

Adam doubtless was repentant after guilt, yet at that point he was not threatened with a penalty by God. “In whatever day you shall eat of it, you shall die the death” [Gen 2:17]. Indeed after his transgression of the divine commandment, God added over and above the threatened penalty of death something else, saying to Adam: “Because you have hearkened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat, cursed is the earth in your work; with labor and toil shall you eat thereof all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you; and you shall eat the herbs of the earth. In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread until you return to earth out of which you were taken, for dust you are, and into dust you shall return” [Gen 3:17-19].

“To the woman also he said: I will multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow shall you bring forth children, and you shall be under your husband’s power,” [Gen 3:16] etc. And just as all of us have sinned in Adam so all of us die in him [cf Rom 5:12], also with the guilt of original sin, for which death and the other penalties were inflicted, remitted in baptism.

“David, after having committed adultery and murder, repentant, said to Nathan: ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ And Nathan said to him: ‘The Lord also has put away your sin'” [2 K 12:13]. Now sin is put away, not in order to put away guilt, but for penalty. . . .

And there are many other examples, which point out and prove the same thing: Miriam, Moses’ sister, after her guilt in murmuring against Moses was forgiven, was stricken with leprosy; nor on that very spot when Moses prayed to the Lord for her that she might be healed, was she cleansed, but when the Lord commanded that for seven days, as a penalty for her sin, she be excluded from the camp, for that time the leprosy remained [Num 12:10-15].

God foretold that Moses and Aaron would not enter or lead the Israelite people into the promised land, on account of the sin of disbelief at the water of contradiction [Num 20:24] although doubtless this sin was forgiven these holy men. Joseph’s brothers confessed that they had justly suffered for their misdeed committed against their brother, “saying among themselves: We have deservedly suffered, because we have sinned against our brother,” etc. [Gen 42:21], Eli, because he reproved the sins of his sons less than he ought, “fell from his stool backwards and broke his neck, and died” [1 Kings 4:18]. David’s guilt, incurred by taking a census of the people, although forgiven him by the mercy of God for which he prayed, was attended by a very savage pestilence. He, being penitent, and commanded by the prophet, Gad, to make satisfaction, erected an altar and made an offering of fifty shekels [2 Sam 24:10ff; cf 1 Chr 21:7ff],

The Ninevites fasted and covered themselves with sackcloth, etc. [Jonah 3:5]. “Ahab . . . fasted, covered himself with goat’s hair, slept in sackcloth, walked with his head bowed down and placated the Lord” [1 K 21:27]. “If that nation shall repent of their evil, I also will repent of the evil that I have thought to do to them” [Jer 18:8].

According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be” [Deut 25:2].

“As much as she has glorified herself and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give to her” [Rev 18:7].

“Be not without fear about sin forgiven and say not: The mercy of the Lord is great, he will have mercy on the multitude of my sins” [Ecclus 5:5f].

Christ said to the cured paralytic who had been in his infirmity for thirty-eight years: “Behold, you have been made whole. Now sin no more, lest anything worse come upon you” [Jn 5:14]. In this Jesus manifestly hints that this infirmity lasting so many years was inflicted as a penalty for a sin long ago (something by no means incredible) wiped out through the patience of the infirm man and the mercy of God.

Axiom 2: Works of Satisfaction, pure prayer, fasting, alms, [and the restitution which is] enjoined upon the confessant, pertain to the sacrament of penance: these one manifestly comes upon from the Holy Scriptures.

In Leviticus [c. 4, 5, 6] the Lord commands various sacrifices to be offered for the various sins of priest, leader and people.

“Turn to me with your whole heart, in fasting and weeping” [Joel 2:12]. Daniel advised Nebuchadnezzar: “Make recompense for your sins with alms, and your iniquities with merciful acts toward the poor” [Dan 4:24].

The Ninevites repentant at the preaching of Jonah,” . . . putting on sackcloth, fasted together with their animals, and praying, cried out to the Lord . . . And God saw their works . . . and had mercy upon them” [Jonah 5:5, 10]. Our Savior Christ, praising them, prefers them to the unrepentant Jews, saying: “The men of Nineveh shall rise in the judgment with this generation, (that is, of those obstinate ones not making satisfaction for their sins) and shall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah …” [Lk 11:32].

John the Baptist urged the people saying: “Bring forth fruits worthy of penance” [Lk 3:8]. Christ upbraided the cities in which very many miracles, were done because they had not repented: “Woe to you, Corozaim Woe to you Bethsaida, for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes” [Mt 11:21].

“Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish,” just as “those eighteen upon whom the tower fell in Siloe and killed them” [Lk 13:4f]. “In all things let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God, in much fasting,” etc. [2 Cor 6:4]. Therefore it is clear that satisfaction is truly necessary for the penitent. [This also is effectively proved by the same scriptures by which Luther in vain tries to disprove it.]

[Objection] John the Baptist, sent to preach repentance, taught only the observance of God’s commandments, saying: “Do nothing more than that which is appointed you” [Lk 3:13], making no mention of satisfaction.
*
[Reply] First of all we deny that John did not teach satisfaction. Surely he enjoined alms which pertain to satisfaction, saying, He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none and he who has food, let him do in like manner” [Lk 3:11]. Indeed those baptized by John confess their sins that according to the quality of the sins penance might be determined for them. Hence he taught, bring forth fruits worthy of penance which fruits arise through works of satisfaction. John did not preach mere repentance but a baptism of repentance, not his own, but of Christ for the remission of sins. Therefore he was not obligated to make more express mention of satisfaction to those baptized by him and those thereafter to be baptized by the baptism of Christ (in which at the same time both guilt and penalty are remitted).

[Objection] Micah says: “I will show you, 0 man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Verily, to do judgment, and to love mercy, and to walk carefully with your God,” etc. [Mic 6:8]. And he corroborates this, because the Prophet here makes fun of those who wish to make satisfaction through works, saying: “What shall I offer to the Lord that is worthy? . . . Shall I offer holocausts unto him, and yearling calves? Can the Lord be appeased with thousands of rams, or with many thousands of he-goats?” etc. [Mic 6:6f] . As if he did not say this.

[Reply] Micah in these words does not exclude but rather includes works of satisfaction. That is, by judgment is understood the severe condemnation of oneself, through loving mercy, through exercising works of alms and piety out of love for the poor, and through walking carefully with God, the observance of divine commandments. Augustine agrees, saying: “In this repentance each one ought to exercise greater severity in himself in order that having been judged by himself he may not be judged by the Lord; so speaks the Apostle [1 Cor 11:31f]” (De Poenitentlae Medicina, c. 2].
*
Nor does Micah make fun of those who wish to make satisfaction to God through good works, but he means that sacrifices and holocausts of animals were not sufficient nor did they avail for the wiping out of sins. “For it is impossible with the blood of goats and bullocks sin should be taken away” [Heb 10:4]. And in themselves these were not pleasing or acceptable to God. For through the prophet he says “I desire not holocausts of rams and of bullocks and blood of calves and lambs” [Is 1:11]. Yet he wished and indeed commanded these things to be offered to him also for sins, not because these sacrifices themselves cleansed from sins, but because certain ones served as witnesses to the faith concerning Christ who was to suffer, which cleansed from sins. And the law itself hints at this from the manner of speaking, for it says that in the offering of victims for sin the priest will pray for it and it will be forgiven him as if the sin were forgiven, not from the force of the sacrifices, but from the faith and devotion of those making the offering.
*
[Objection] Christ by his passion and death made satisfaction for our sins. Yet the passion of Christ was sufficient not only for removing sins, but also for wiping out punishments. “For he has borne our infirmities,” says the prophet, “and carried our sorrows” [Is 53:4]. Therefore, etc.
*
[Reply] The passion of Christ is sufficient to remove all guilt of punishment not only eternal but also temporal and according to the mode whereby man participates in the power of Christ’s passion and receives also absolution from the guilt of punishment.
*
Moreover in baptism man participates totally in the power of Christ s passion (as through water and the Holy Spirit having died together with Christ to sin, and in him regenerated to new life). And for that reason in baptism man obtains remission of all guilt of punishment, but in penance man obtains the power of Christ’s passion according to the mode of his very own acts which are the matter of penance. Hence the Apostle urges the penitent ones saying: “For as you have yielded your members to serve uncleanness and iniquity, unto iniquity, so now yield your members to serve justice unto sanctification” [Rom 6:19]. And the prophet says: “For as it was your mind to go astray from God, so when you return again you shall seek him ten times as much” [Bar 4:28], And for this reason, not immediately through the first act of penitence whereby blame is remitted, is the guilt of punishment released. But you complete all the parts of penance. Yet we admit how much contrition anyone can have in order to wipe away at one and the same time all blame and punishment. But this, as yet given to few, is not certain to whom it is given.
*
It is to be said that God perfectly cures the whole man. Moreover sometimes he did this suddenly as when he restored Peter’s mother-in-law immediately to perfect health [Lk 4:38f]. But sometimes he did so consecutively as for example, the blind man enlightened by the Lord was first restored to imperfect vision whereupon he said: “I see men walking like trees,” then he was perfectly restored so that he saw all things clearly [Mk 8:24]. And thus also he nevertheless spiritually converts the heart of men with such great agitation, that suddenly it perfectly achieves spiritual health, not only with guilt forgiven, but with all the rest of sin removed, as is clear concerning Mary Magdalene [Lk 7:7]. He previously forgives guilt through operating grace and afterwards through cooperating grace he removes in succession the guilt of the penalty and the other remnants of sins. It. does not come about therefore from Christ’s act that when guilt is forgiven, at the same time all punishment is forgiven, but rather the contrary, etc.
*
*

***
*
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.

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 InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Photo credit: painting on the “Reconciliation” page for St. Helena Catholic Church, Amite, Louisiana.

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

2024-05-29T14:53:55-04:00

“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!

***

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. 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)

See also my articles, and book:

Martin Luther’s Remarkably “Pro-Tradition” Strain of Thought [1-18-08]

The “Catholic-Sounding” Luther: 25 Examples [6-16-08]

Martin Luther: Catholicism is Christian [6-12-13]

Top Ten Remarkable “Catholic” Beliefs of Martin Luther [1-19-15]

The “Catholic” Luther : An Ecumenical Collection of His “Traditional” Utterances (Dec. 2014, 166 pages)

Luther had, however, rejected at least fifty Catholic doctrines or practices by 1520, before he was excommunicated (as I have documented form his own words). Like I said: “mixed bag.”

***

Christ did not write any book, nor did He bid the disciples or apostles to write one, yet He gave many precepts concerning the Church; hence when about to send apostles out to plant the Church, He did not say, “Go write,” but “Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature” [Mt. 24:14], Therefore the law was written on tablets of stone, but the Gospel on hearts. “Since you are a letter of Christ, sent out by us, and written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tablets of stone, but in the physical tablets of the heart” [2 Cor 3:3].

Thus the apostles without the Scripture of the New Testament chose Matthias [Acts 1:22ff], ordained seven deacons [Acts 6:3]; Peter caused Ananias and Sapphira to die [Acts 5:1ff]. Even though the apostles were very diligent in sowing the Word of God, yet very few things are found written by them. It follows logically that they taught many more things than they wrote; the things taught have equal authority with the things written.

Let the objection immediately be raised against him: how does he know that these Scriptures are canonical except from the Church, for why does he believe the Gospel of Mark, who did not see Christ, to be canonical, and not the Gospel of Nicodemus, who saw and heard Christ, as John testifies [Jn 3:1ff]? So why has the Gospel of Luke the disciple been received, and the Gospel of Bartholomew the apostle been rejected, unless we humbly confess the authority of the Church with the Blessed Augustine, something Luther sometimes taught, that the Church could judge concerning the Scriptures.

Hence, Augustine, Against the Epistle Called Fundamental, 5.6 [PL 42.176]: “I would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Church had moved me to do so.”

Luther largely agreed, at least in this statement:

St. Paul says in Rom. 1, 2, that the Gospel was promised afore in the Holy Scriptures, but it was not preached orally and publicly until Christ came and sent out his apostles. Therefore the church is a mouth-house, not a pen-house, for since Christ’s advent that Gospel is preached orally which before was hidden in written books. It is the way of the Gospel and of the New Testament that it is to be preached and discussed orally with a living voice. Christ himself wrote nothing, nor did he give command to write, but to preach orally. Thus the apostles were not sent out until Christ came to his mouth-house, that is, until the time had come to preach orally and to bring the Gospel from dead writing and pen-work to the living voice and mouth. (Sermon for the First Sunday in Advent; Matthew 21:1-9, 1521)

i. Scripture teaches: “Remember to hallow the Sabbath day; six days shall you labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath day of the Lord your God,” etc. [Ex 20:8ff] Yet the Church has changed the Sabbath into Sunday on its own authority, on which you have no Scripture.

ii. Christ said to His disciples on the mountain: “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it” [Matt 5:17]. And yet the Church of the apostles in council [Acts 15] boldly made pronouncement on the cessation of legal matters. . . .

iv. Scripture is defined in the council: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” [Acts 15:28] etc., “that you should abstain from sacrifices offered to idols, and blood and things strangled [v. 29]. This matter, so clearly defined and expressed, the Church by her authority changed, because she uses both blood and strangled meat. . . .

“And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension against them, the brethren decided that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem about this question” [Acts 15:2] . . . And what was the Church? Not the whole congregation, but they went up to the apostles and presbyters who represented the Church.

See the Related Materials:

Part IV: Erasmus’ Hyperaspistes (1526): Luther’s Anti-Traditional Elements

Part VI: Erasmus’ Hyperaspistes (1526): Sola Scriptura and Perspicuity of Scripture

*

***
*
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.

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 InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Photo credit: A lovely visual of biblical “tradition”: Torah scrolls at Middle Street Synagogue, Brighton, England. Photograph by “The Voice of Hassocks” (5-5-13) [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication]

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

2024-05-22T09:09:37-04:00

“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!

***

I am responding to the book, Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1880), by Richard Frederick Littledale (1833-1890), an Anglo-Irish clergyman and prolific author. He received LL.B. and LL.D. degrees from Trinity College Dublin, in 1862, and a D.C.L. from Oxford. He was renowned as a father confessor, and next to Edward Pusey is said to have heard more confessions than any other priest of the church of England. His Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome, a volume of which thirty-six thousand copies were issued in 1880 and following years, evoked replies from the Rev. W. Horsfall, the Rev. A. Mills, Oxoniensis, and H. I. D. Ryder. I will be addressing certain of his claims regarding Peter and the Church fathers early in this book. His words will be in blue.

***

It is little more than a guess— though no doubt one with much in its favour — that St. Peter was ever at Rome at all; it is only a guess that he was ever Bishop of Rome, and for this there is very little evidence of any kind; it is only a guess that he had the power to appoint any heir to his special privilege, whatever that was; it is only a guess that he did so appoint the Bishops of Rome — and for these two guesses not the smallest scrap or tittle of evidence ever has been produced, or can be so much as reasonably supposed ever to have existed . . . the Ultramontane interpretation put on the three great texts in the Gospels which are relied on to support the ” Privilege of Peter,”— namely, St. Matt. xvi. 18, that St. Peter is the rock and foundation of the Church; St. Luke xxii. 31, 32, that St. Peter was infallible, and charged with guiding the faith of the other Apostles; and St. John xxi. 15- 17, that he was given jurisdiction over the Apostles and the whole Church — is contrary to the “unanimous consent of the Fathers,” who agree by a great majority that either Christ Himself, or St. Peter’s confession of Christ, is the rock and foundation of the Church . . . (pp. 25-26; my bolding)

St. Irenaeus (130-202) wrote:

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem]. (Against Heresies, Bk. III, ch. 3, 2)

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 225) stated:

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. (Prescription against Heretics, 32; c. 200)

The Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius (c. 260/265-339) was the first and by far most important comprehensive history of the Church, and was completed in its first edition before 300 AD (later editions: c. 313-323):

After the martyrdom of Paul and of PeterLinus [start of reign between 64-68] was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle. [2 Tim 4:21] (EHBk III, 2, 1; cf. III, 4, 9. In Bk III, ch. 13, Eusebius says that Linus was bishop for twelve years)

Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer [Phil 4:3] . . .  (EHBk III, 4, 10)

In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, delivered his office to Anencletus. (EHBk III, 13, 1)

In the twelfth year of the same reign [92/93] Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. (EHBk III, 15, 1)

At that time Clement still ruled the church of Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after Paul and Peter. Linus was the first, and after him came Anencletus. (EHBk III, 21, 1-3)

Clement committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus, and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all. (EHBk III, 34, 1)

At that time also Alexander [r. c. 107-109 – c. 115-119], the fifth in the line of succession from Peter and Paul, received the episcopate at Rome, after Evarestus had held the office eight years. (EHBk IV, 1, 1-2)

Epiphanius (c. 315-403) wrote:

6 Paul even reached Spain, and Peter often visited Pontus and Bithynia. But after Clement had been appointed and declined, if this is what happened—I suspect this but cannot say it for certain—he could have been compelled to hold the episcopate in his turn, after the deaths of Linus and Cletus who were bishops for twelve years each after the death of Saints Peter and Paul in the twelfth year of Nero.) 7 In any case, the succession of the bishops at Rome runs in this order: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus, whom I mentioned above, on the list. And no one need be surprised at my listing each of the items so exactly; precise information is always given in this way. (Panarion 27.6.6-7)

Likewise, St. Jerome (c. 343-420) wrote:

Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life, the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus [d. c. 76] and the third Anacletus [d. c. 92], although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle. He wrote, on the part of the church of Rome, an especially valuable Letter to the church of the Corinthians, . . . (De Viris Illustribus, section 15)

Hegesippus [c. 110-c. 180] who lived at a period not far from the Apostolic age, . . . says that he went to Rome in the time of Anicetus [d. 168], the tenth bishop after Peter, and continued there till the time of Eleutherius [d. 185 or 193], bishop of the same city, who had been formerly deacon under Anicetus. (De Viris Illustribus, section 22)

Simon Peter . . .  himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch . . . pushed on to Rome . . . and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. (De Viris Illustribus [On Illustrious Men], section 1)

Regarding the confusion or mixed reports about the chronology of the earliest popes, see, “Pope St. Clement I” (Catholic Encyclopedia, John Chapman, 1908). He states, for example: “At the present time no critic doubts that Cletus, Anacletus, Anencletus, are the same person. Anacletus is a Latin error; Cletus is a shortened (and more Christian) form of Anencletus.”

Was Peter In Rome?

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Protestants admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there.

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning [Nero reigned from 54–68], Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens’ books or to the Catholic Answers tract Peter’s Roman Residency.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. (“Was Peter in Rome?,” Catholic Answers, 2004)

Eighteen Church Fathers Who Thought Peter was the Rock, the Foundation of the Church and its Leader, Based on Matthew 16 

Tertullian, writing around 200-220, stated that “Peter . . . is called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built” (Prescription against Heretics, 22).

St. Hippolytus wrote around 225: “By this Spirit Peter spoke that blessed word, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established” (The Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9).

Origen writing around 230-250, called Peter “that great foundation of the Church, and most solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church” (In Exod. Hom. v. n. 4, tom. ii) and “Upon him (Peter)  . . . the Church was founded” (In Epist. ad Rom. lib. v. c. 10, tom. iv) and “Peter upon whom is built Christ’s Church” (T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.).

St. Cyprian, c. 246, wrote about “Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built” (Epistle 54 to Cornelius, 7).

Firmilian, c. 254, wrote about “one Church, which was once first established by Christ on a Rock” (Inter Ep. S. Cyp. Ep. lxxv).

Aphraates (c. 336) stated that “the Lord . . . set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the Church” (Homily 7:15, De Paenitentibus).

St. Ephraem (c. 350-370) called Peter “the foundation of the holy Church” (Homilies 4:1).

St. Hilary of Poitiers in 360 held that Peter was “the foundation-stone of the Church” (On the Trinity, Bk. VI, 20).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 363), commenting on Matthew 16, calls peter “the foremost of the apostles and chief herald of the Church” (Catechetical Lecture 11, 3).

St. Optatus (c. 370), commenting on the same passage, wrote that Peter was “to be preferred before all the Apostles” and was “The Head of the Apostles” (De Schism. Don. l. vii. n. 3).

St. Gregory of Nazianzen (370) stated that Peter “is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church” (T. i. or. xxxii. n. 18).

St. Gregory of Nyssa (371) wrote that Peter was “the Head of the Apostles . . . (upon him) is the Church of God firmly established. . . . that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church” (Alt. Or. De S. Steph.).

St. Basil the Great (371) stated that Peter “received on himself the building of the Church” (Adversus Eunomius 2:4).

St. Epiphanius (c. 385): “upon which (Rock) the Church is in every way built . . . Foundation of the house of God” (Adv. Haeres.).

St. Ambrose (c. 385-389): “whom when He styles a Rock, He pointed out the Foundation of the Church” (T. ii. l. iv. De Fide, c. v. n. 56).

St. John Chrysostom (c. 387): “Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church . . . that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples” (T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paenit. n. 4).

St. Jerome (385): “Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church” (Letters 41, 2).

St. Cyril of Alexandria (424): “the church . . . over this he sets Peter as shepherd” (Comm. on Matt., ad. loc.).

Nine Church Fathers Who Thought That John 21 was “Papal”: Indicative of Peter Being the Leader of the Early Church

Origen (c. 216): “the Chief Authority as regards the feeding of the sheep was delivered to Peter” (T. iv. l. 5, in Ep. ad Rom. n. 1).

St. Cyprian (c. 246): “to the same [Peter] He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, . . . yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one.” (Treatise 1: On the Unity of the Church, 4).

St. Ephraem (c. 350-370): “The Lord . . . delivered his flock to Simon . . . Three pledges he took from him as shepherd, that with love he should shepherd his lambs, and should visit his sheep with mercy, and should guard his ewes with fear.” (HVirg. 36, 6; CSCO 223, Syr. 94).

Ambrosiaster (c. 380-384): “After the Saviour all were included in Peter; for He constituted him to be their head, that he might be the shepherd of the Lord’s flock” (Quaest. 75, ex N. Test. in App. St. August. tom. iii. 2894).

St. Ambrose (385): Therefore did Christ also commit to Peter to feed His flock” (Ib. in. Ps. cxviii. [Mem] n. 3).

St. Epiphanius (c. 385): “He heard from the same God, ‘Peter, feed My lambs;’ to him was intrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master.” (Tom. ii. In Anchorat. n. 9).

St. John Chrysostom (c. 387): “He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren . . . [and] says, ‘If Thou lovest Me, preside over the brethren’ . . . He sets the presidency over his own sheep . . . He appointed this man (Peter) teacher . . . of the world.” (In Joan. Hom. lxxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii.).

“What advantage, pray, could be greater than to be seen doing those things which Christ with his own lips declared to be proofs of love to Himself? For addressing the leader of the apostles He said, Peter, do you love me? and when he confessed that he did, the Lord added, if you love me tend my sheep. The Master asked the disciple if He was loved by him, not in order to get information (how should He who penetrates the hearts of all men?), but in order to teach us how great an interest He takes in the superintendence of these sheep. This being plain, it will likewise be manifest that a great and unspeakable reward will be reserved for him whose labors are concerned with these sheep, upon which Christ places such a high value. . . . For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors. . . . Will you, then, still contend that you were not rightly deceived, when you are about to superintend the things which belong to God, and are doing that which when Peter did the Lord said he should be able to surpass the rest of the apostles, for His words were, Peter, do you love me more than these? . . . one is required to preside over the Church, and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls . . .” (On the Priesthood, Book II, 1-2)

St. Augustine (c. 400): “. . . the Lord commended his sheep to Peter himself to feed . . . when Christ speaks to one, unity is commended — and to Peter for the first time, because Peter is first among the apostles.” (Sermo. 295).

“[T]here are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.” (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, ch. 4, 5).

“The Lord, indeed, had told His disciples to carry a sword; but He did not tell them to use it. But that after this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation.” (Contra Faustum, Book XXII, 70).

“And again the Lord asked this question, and a third time He asked it. And when he asserted in reply his love, He commended to him the flock. For each several time the Lord Jesus said to Peter, as he said, I love you; Feed My lambs, feed My little sheep. In this one Peter was figured the unity of all pastors . . .” (Sermon 97 on the New Testament, 2).

“Peter generally stands for a figure of the Church.” (Sermon 25 on the New Testament, 10; cf. Sermon 96Sermon 88, 4).

“For He says to Peter, in whom singly He forms the Church; Peter, do you love Me? He answered, Lord, I do love You. Feed My sheep. ” (Sermon 87 on the New Testament, 3).

St. Peter Chrysologus (432): “He commends His sheep to be fed by Peter, in His stead” (Serm. vi. In Ps. xcix).

For more on both passages, see: Papal Authority In The NT And The Fathers (Vs. Mike Winger) [3-9-24].

*
***

*

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.

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 InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: Richard Frederick Littledale’s book, Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome; 1881 title page; from Internet Archive.

Summary: Anglican polemicist Richard Frederick Littledale (1833-1890) made dubious claims about patristic beliefs regarding St. Peter. I shoot them down with historical facts.

2024-05-21T10:10:41-04:00

“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!

***

I am critiquing Lecture XII (pp. 299-320) in the book, Errors and Persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church, published in 1881 by J. H. Chambers & Co. (St. Louis), which is entitled, “The Charge of Idolatrous Worship made against the Roman Church: Is it True?” It was written by a Presbyterian: Rev. Samuel J. Niccolls, D.D. (1838-1915). He was a chaplain during the Civil War, a pastor, and moderator at the 1872 meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Detroit. The organization of the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) owes its success largely to his influence and perseverance. Dr. Niccolls was selected to receive special honors by Princeton University in its Sesquicentennial Celebration in 1896. His words will be in blue.

***

Protestants, ever since the time of the Reformation, have asserted that the worship of the church of Rome is idolatrous in its nature and tendencies. This charge constitutes one of the chief reasons of their opposition to that church. They claim that the usages of worship which prevail in it, are not only contrary to the practice of the primitive church, but that they are in direct contradiction to the positive commands of the Word of God.

On the other hand, the adherents of the church of Rome have most strenuously denied this charge as slanderous in the extreme; they have complained that they have been misrepresented in this matter, and that their true belief is the very reverse of what has been charged against them. . . . 

If it is not true, one party is a slanderer of the church of God, and a chief reason for its existence turns out to be a lie.

Very true!

If it is true, the other against whom the accusation is made, is branded with guilt and dishonor.

Yes, if true. The key word is if.

It is proposed to set the facts of this controversy plainly and fairly before the intelligent reader, that he may judge for himself.

Fair enough! Let’s see what he can come up with.

First of all, in order to reach a right decision, it is necessary to know what constitutes idolatry. Both Protestants and Romanists are agreed that it is a most heinous sin; that the word of God condemns it; and that idolatrous worship is hateful in the sight of God. But what is idolatry? What are the characteristics of an idolatrous worship? These questions are to be answered by the Scriptures, and by them alone.

The Bible is what we both revere as God’s inspired revelation, so it’s where the “battle” must be fought.

The internal act of worship consists in giving to God the supreme reverence, love and confidence of our hearts. Whatever usurps His place in the soul of man, is an idol, a false god; . . . 

The external act of idolatry consists in worshipping false gods, or in giving to other objects than God that homage and worship which are due to Him alone. Any form of worship which robs God of the supreme homage due Him, by ascribing divine attributes and offices to creatures; or which sets before the worshipper as the object of his trust and adoration, a being who is not God, is plainly idolatrous. It is a violation of the first commandment.

We agree.

But it is also taught in the Scriptures that God must not be worshipped by the use of images or pictures.

This is where we start to disagree.

The second commandment clearly forbids this, and stamps such worship as idolatrous. The precise thing forbidden by it, is the making of images or pictures as objects of worship, and bowing down to them and serving them, that is, performing acts of religious worship before them.

The “graven image” of Exodus 20:4 has to do with God’s forbidding of idolatry: making a stone or block of wood or a mere image God, and worshiping it. The Jews were forbidden to have idols (like all their neighbors had), and God told them not to make an image of Him because He revealed Himself as a spirit. The KJV and RSV Bible versions use the term graven image at Exodus 20:4, but many of the more recent translations render the word as idol (e.g., NASB, NRSV, NIV, CEV).
*
Context makes it very clear that idolatry is being condemned. The next verse states: “You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (NIV, NRSV), or “serve” them as if they were literally God (Ex 20:5; Dt 5:9). In other words, mere blocks of stone or wood (“them”) are not to be worshiped, as that is gross idolatry, and the inanimate objects are not God:

Revelation 9:20 (RSV) The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot either see or hear or walk;

This does not absolutely preclude, however, the notion of worshiping the true God with the help of a visual aid, as I will show in due course. Idolatry is a matter of disobedience in the heart towards the one true God. We don’t always need an image to have an idol. Most idols today are non-visual: money, lust for power, convenience, our own pride or intellects; there are all sorts of idols. Anything that replaces God as the most important thing in our life and the universe, is an idol.

The Hebrew word translated ”serve” includes all kinds of external homage, such as burning incense, making offerings, and kissing in token of subjection.

I’ll take his word for that, but the point is to what or to Whom these acts are directed. This still doesn’t absolutely preclude all images and religious objects, properly used.

. . . terrible judgments . . . fell upon the people whenever they attempted to worship God by images. When in the wilderness the people demanded of Aaron that he should introduce image- worship among them, their purpose was not to renounce Jehovah as their God; they only asked a symbol of Him, as the heathen had their symbols.

I don’t think the text teaches this at all. They weren’t trying to worship the true God via an image. Aaron and the mob were after something entirely different:

Exodus 32:1, 4, 7-8 When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron, and said to him, “Up, make us gods, who shall go before us; . . .” [4] And he received the gold at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made a molten calf; and they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt! . . .” [7] And the LORD said to Moses, “Go down; for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves; [8] they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them; they have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it . . .”

That’s not only rank idolatry and blasphemy, but polytheism as well. Dr. Niccolls completely misrepresents the nature of what was going on there. God said that He would “blot out of” His “book” (Ex 32:33) whoever engaged in this idolatry, and He “sent a plague” to judge them (Ex 33:35. This was not just using an image improperly in worship; it was much more serious: pretending that a golden calf was actually a “god”  who had brought them out of Egypt. Dr. Niccolls vainly tries to force-fit this into a scenario that would include all religious images, and it just doesn’t fly.

. . . one essential mark of the true worship of Jehovah, as contrasted with idolatrous worship, was that in it no images or visible objects representing the invisible object of worship were to be used. The Jews from the time of Moses until now, have always considered the worship of the true God by images as much an act of idolatry as the worship of false gods . . . Indeed, the scriptures make little or no difference between the worshipping of God by images, and the worshipping of false gods. Both are idolatrous.

This simply isn’t true. Moses had worshiped God in the burning bush on Mt. Sinai (Ex 3:2-6). It was not only fire, but also called an “angel of the Lord” (Ex 3:2), yet also “God” (3:4, 6, 11, 13-16, 18; 4:5, 7-8) and “the LORD” (3:7, 16, 18; 4:2, 4-6, 10-11, 14) interchangeably. The wandering Hebrews worshiped Him in the pillars of fire and cloud: all images of God, by God’s own design. One of the most striking and undeniable passages about such worship-of God-through-an-image appears in the very next chapter:

Exodus 33:10  And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door.

Note that the pillar of cloud is:

1) a creation (water, if a literal cloud);

2) visual, hence an image;

and

3) thought to directly represent God Himself.

It’s also a supernatural manifestation, which is a major difference compared to any true idol made by the hands of men; but that would make no difference for those who mistakenly hold that any image whatsoever associated with God is impermissible. The Bible mentions a pillar of cloud and also a pillar of fire (by night), representing God (see:  Ex 13:21-22; 14:24; Num 14:14; Neh 9:12, 19). The Bible specifically makes it clear that God was “in” the two pillars:

Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud . . . and by night in a pillar of fire . . .

Exodus 14:24 . . . the LORD in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down upon the host of the Egyptians . . .

Exodus 33:9 When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses.

Numbers 12:5 And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the tent . . .

Numbers 14:14  . . . thou, O LORD, art in the midst of this people; for thou, O LORD, art seen face to face, and thy cloud stands over them and thou goest before them, in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night.

Deuteronomy 31:15 And the LORD appeared in the tent in a pillar of cloud . . .

Psalm 99:7 He spoke to them in the pillar of cloud;

This represented God, and His people worshiped Him in the cloud, which we know with certainty from Exodus 33:10. It doesn’t always state that the people worshiped God through the supernatural image-pillars, but we know from Exodus 33:8-10 that it was entirely permissible to do so (no hint of condemnation in the biblical text); certainly not “idolatry.” Moreover, the Jews “worshiped” God as represented by fire — or God in the fire — in an additional way:

2 Chronicles 7:1-4 When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the temple. [2] And the priests could not enter the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD filled the LORD’s house. [3] When all the children of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD upon the temple, they bowed down with their faces to the earth on the pavement, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures for ever.” [4] Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before the LORD.

God Himself expressly sanctions such images (cloud and fire), and worship in conjunction with them. Therefore, not all images of God are idolatrous. Case closed. Game, set, match . . .

God made Himself specially present in or near material objects, too. He states repeatedly that He is present above the “mercy seat” on the ark of the covenant, between the two carved cherubim (Ex 25:22; 30:6; Lev 16:2; Num 7:89; 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kg 19:15; 1 Chr 13:6; Ps 80:1; 99:1; Is 37:16; Ezek 10:4; Heb 9:5). Therefore, we are informed that the Jews would bow before the ark to pray or worship:

Joshua 7:6 Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening . . . [proceeds to pray in 7:7-8]

1 Chronicles 16:4 Moreover he appointed certain of the Levites as ministers before the ark of the LORD, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the LORD, the God of Israel.

Some of the early Calvinists were so fanatical that they smashed not only statues of saints, but also organs, stained glass, even statues of Jesus Christ and crucifixes. They ignored all the distinctions that the Bible plainly makes. We reject such clear biblical teaching at our peril. Iconoclasm (opposition to images) is a false tradition of men that was officially condemned by the Church long ago.
*
If, then, we find any church which in its teachings or practice, gives to men, or saints, or angels, the homage and praise which are due to God alone, we are right in calling it idolatrous;
*
Indeed. The mistake, however, is in claiming that the Catholic Church teaches that creatures should receive the same “homage and praise” as God. This is a damnable lie. You’ll notice that Dr. Niccolls produces no official magisterial text along these lines, to back himself up. There’s a good reason for that: there are none. So on what does he base his charge in the first place? Just because that’s what he wants to project onto Catholic worship, as if he can read our hearts and conjure up some supposed teaching of ours that is nonexistent? That‘s all he has?
*
or if we find a church which claims to worship the living God alone, and yet uses images or symbols to represent Him, and bows down to them, and serves them, we have a right to say, that such worship is idolatrous.
*
No we do not, if God is being worshiped in the same way as He is in the Bible, through the symbols of cloud and fire. Those are “images and symbols,” too, after all. We go by the Bible on this score. Dr. Niccolls and his Presbyterians do not. We’re much more biblical. They ignore things in the Bible that don’t conform to their unbiblical traditions of men.
*
There are, in general, four things taught and practised by the church of Rome against which Protestants bring the charge of idolatry. These are  the invocation of saints and angels; the worship of the Virgin Mary; the use of images in the worship of God; and the adoration of the Host.
*
None of these charges succeed, as I will proceed to show, as he addresses each one in turn. I’ve already disposed of the third one from clear and undeniable biblical teaching.
*
As to the first — the invocation of saints — the doctrine of the Roman church, as declared by the council of Trent, is as follows: ”That the saints who reign together with Christ, offer to God their prayers for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to flee to their prayers, help, and assistance, on account of the benefits to be obtained from God, through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our only Redeemer and Savior.”
*
None of those involve worship or idolatry. It’s simply asking the saints to pray for us, just as we ask each other on earth to do so. This is expressly sanctioned by Jesus in his story of the rich man petitioning Abraham (Luke 16:19-31). We’re not placing anyone in God’s position. As Niccolls’ own citation from Trent states, it’s “on account of the benefits to be obtained from God, through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.” That’s not idolatry! It’s shoddy, incoherent, woefully insufficient “logic” that claims that it is idolatry.
*
Saints and angels are confessedly the objects of worship in the Roman church; but a distinction is made between the worship offered to them, and to God. The worship of douleia is due to saints and angels, while that of latreia belongs to God alone. It is on this distinction that the Romanist relies to defend himself from the charge of idolatry. It has, however, been well remarked by a distinguished theologian, that this distinction is of little use.
*
This is laughably ridiculous. Having declared that the Catholic Church is idolatrous, he then immediately dismisses the crucial distinctions we make, — which prevent the charge from possibly being made –, as if they don’t matter. After all, some “distinguished theologian” said it made no difference! See how it works? The anti-Catholic critic can’t prove that we endorse rank idolatry, so he goes after our distinction between adoration of God and veneration of saints, which ought to altogether solve the problem that they have with us, by making crystal clear that it is not idolatry at all.
*
But in the nick of time the absurd charge is salvaged by merely proclaiming that we are — bottom line — lying through our teeth and that, in fact, there is no distinction. It’s desperation, folks. Know lousy arguments when you see them. As a veteran of probably 1500 written debates by now, believe me, I know ’em when I see ’em: and right away, too.
*
Any homage, internal or external, which involves the ascription of divine attributes to its object, if that object be a creature, is idolatrous.
*
We agree. We completely disagree that anything in our teaching espouses this. We don’t teach that any saint isn’t a creature, or is omniscient or omnipotent or omnipresent, or immutable, or answers prayers on their own without God, etc. It’s a lie; a bum rap. And where do these people get off making these claims; thinking that they don’t have to document them from our own theology and our official “books”?
*
It is easy to say that the saints are not to be honored as God is honored, but this does not alter the case, if the homage rendered them assumes that they possess the attributes of God . . .
*
We don’t teach this. That’s all that matters. Any layman can potentially practice it in a way that doesn’t conform to the teaching. That is not the teaching itself. Heresies and cults and theologically uneducated or miseducated people butcher the Bible itself (to use but one example of countless ones) all the time. Does it follow that the Bible is to blame for that? No, of course not. Nor is our teaching to blame for those who distort it. We don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. One bad apple doesn’t make all the apples in the cart bad or destroy the ideal or concept of the apple itself.
*
The facts are, as can readily be learned from the books of devotion in common and authorized use in the Roman church, that blessings are sought from the saints, which God alone can bestow, and that they are relied upon to obtain these blessings for their worshippers
*
Really? Again, we don’t worship them; we honor them. I again cite Dr. Niccoll’s own citation from rent, as to where the answers to prayer and the blessings come from: “benefits [are] obtained from God, through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our only Redeemer and Savior.” This is presupposed in all such prayers or petitions. 
*
All blessings, temporal and spiritual, are sought for at the hands of the saints.
*
Basically, he is attacking the concept of “patron saints.” But a biblical argument can be made for it. Protestants object that certain saints have special or particular influence with God, and more efficacious prayers in specific area. I don’t see why. The Bible clearly teaches that different people have different levels of grace (Acts 4:33; 2 Cor 8:7; Eph 4:7; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 3:18).
*
From this it follows, it seems to me, that some might specialize in certain areas more so than others, according to different parts of the Body of Christ (there is much Pauline teaching on that). I don’t see why this should be either controversial or objectionable. It’s usually objected to because of observed excesses, while an ironclad argument against it from Scripture is rarely made.
*
The fact remains that “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16). In the larger context of that passage, James states:

James 5:17-18 Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. [18] Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.

Would it not follow, then, that Elijah seemed to have a particular influence over weather? Therefore, why couldn’t someone ask him to pray to God about the weather, rather than someone else, since he had this record of asking for rain to cease, and it did for three and-a-half years? So he became, in effect, the “patron saint of meteorological petitions.” We do roughly the same in this life with friends, on the level of empathy. So, for example, if a woman has difficulty with miscarriage or difficult pregnancies or deliveries, she might go to a woman who has experienced the same thing and ask her to pray to God for her.

I don’t see any intrinsic difficulty here. Catholics don’t ever deny anyone the ability to “go straight to God.” But we assert with James that certain prayers of certain people have more power (also with regard to certain specificities); therefore it is sensible to go to them as intermediaries. And this includes those in heaven, of whom Jesus said that they were more alive than we are. The Bible massively teaches that we can and should go to the most holy person we know and ask them to pray to God for us or for some cause. So once again, we are being more biblical than our Protestant critics.

Thus the saints are asked to give that which God alone can bestow,

We don’t ask them to bestow the answer, but rather, to ask God to do so; to intercede.

and as they are addressed by their worshippers from every part of the earth,

We don’t worship them.

and by many thousands at the same hour, the mind of the worshipper must clothe them with the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence.

This doesn’t follow, either. See:

*
*
The second ground for the charge of idolatry is the worship of the Virgin Mary. . . . as the spirituality of the church declined, this feeling degenerated into a superstitious regard, and at last culminated in her worship as an object of divine honors. . . . the deification of the Virgin . . . 
*
The burden of this slanderer (and we must conclude that he is that by now) is to prove it from our documents. Needless to say, he doesn’t. He merely assumes that everyone knows this. It needs no proof. Why should I even bother arguing it if he gives no evidence that the Catholic Church actually teaches this in the first place? Some ignorant people may do it — even many –, but that’s not the Church, and it’s irrelevant to comparative theology and practice.
*
. . . the first step was the declaration of her “perpetual virginity,”
*
Which Luther and Calvin and virtually all of the early Protestant founders and leaders believed . . . So did John Wesley, the founder of Dr. Niccoll’s denomination:
I believe… he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. (“Letter to a Roman Catholic,” quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495)
Were they all filthy idolaters, t00?
*
the last act in the series was to declare her “immaculate conception”
*
How is that making her like God? The belief is that God performed a special miracle at her conception, to make her free or original sin. That doesn’t make her like God at all. It makes her like Eve before the fall of man: sinless, and like all of the angels that didn’t fall and rebel against God. Angels aren’t God, either. They are creatures. Martin Luther believed in this, too, until he modified it a bit later in life (still thinking she was sinless). Was he an idolater as well?
*
She was, according to this dogma, born without the least stain of original sin, and is thus placed, as to complete sinlessness, on an equality with her adorable Son.
*
This is cluelessly stupid and grossly unbiblical. As I just noted, if this were true, Adam and Eve before the fall and all of the unfallen angels would be equal to Jesus, too.
*
Dr. Niccolls then goes on to recite the usual litany of prayers addressed to Mary for her intercession, that sound horrible to Protestant ears because they are uniformly and essentially misunderstood. I’ve dealt with this several times:
*
*
The doctrine of the council of Trent on this point [the Mass] is, that the bread and wine are changed by the power of God into Christ’s body and blood. They do not represent, but they actually become the real Christ, and remain so. The consecrated wafer becomes the whole Christ — body, soul and divinity. . . . This worship is given in the belief that, as the bread has been changed into the true body of Christ, 
*
How, then, can it possibly be idolatry, if we are worshiping God Himself and not wafers or wine? It can’t be, by definition, because that would require replacing God with something else, whereas we believe that the bread and wine are God after consecration. Therefore, we are consciously worshiping God in the consecrated elements. I did so yesterday at church. Martin Luther also believed in the Real Presence and in adoration of the consecrated host.
*
If such a change has indeed taken place, and the whole Christ is locally present in the wafer, then indeed the worship would be proper.
*
Exactly! And that is the bottom line. We believe in the miracle; so did Luther. Therefore it can’t possibly be idolatry, precisely because we believe it to be God, not mere bread and wine, and idolatry always resides in the heart and interior disposition. If one doesn’t believe in the miracle of transubstantiation or something similar (like Luther), then (obviously) they think it is bread-worship, but that can’t be the case for Catholics who believe in it, by definition.
*
When men place before themselves a piece of bread — a wafer made of flour — and give to it the homage due to God alone, as the Romanist confessedly does,
*
This is asinine! We do not do that, and what he already wrote shows that he knows this. So why does he now go back and claim that we “confessedly” and supposedly give a “piece of bread” the “homage due to God alone”? It’s dishonest and deceitful! And it’s an utterly incoherent argument.
*
The arguments which are drawn from the Scriptures to defend the Romish doctrine of the Mass are contradictory, unsatisfactory, and in positive violation of well known and established laws of interpretation.
*
Easy to say. I provide extensive biblical arguments on my Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass web page.
*
The notion that the Lord’s Supper is a true sacrifice ”offered up for the living and the dead,” is in plain violation of the teachings of the New Testament, which declare that Christ’s once offering up himself a sacrifice, has made a complete atonement, and “by one offering he hath perfected forever those that are sanctified.” It is a remembrance, a memorial of a sacrifice already made once for all, and not a repetition of that sacrifice.
*
We don’t believe that it is a new sacrifice every Mass, but rather, a miracle by which the one historical sacrifice of Christ on the cross is supernaturally made present at each Mass.
*
It is also an insuperable objection to this doctrine, that it involves impossibilities and contradictions. It requires us to believe that a material object should be completely changed, and at the same time not changed. The bread remains bread, and the wine — wine; and yet we are required to believe that they are something else. It requires us to disbelieve and set aside the well authenticated evidences of our senses.
*
See:
*
***

*

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.

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 InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: sketch of Samuel J. Nichols. Source: Alfred Nevin, David Robert Bruce Nevin, editors, Encyclopaedia of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Encyclopaedia Publishing Co., 1884), 576. [Find a Grave website]

Summary: I respond to the anti-Catholic arguments of the Presbyterian Rev. Samuel J. Niccolls, D.D. (1838-1915), concerning alleged idolatrous worship & piety in Catholicism.

2024-04-25T15:48:57-04:00

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,500+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (w 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!

***

[relevant sections from my book,  The Quotable Eastern Church Fathers: Distinctively Catholic Elements in Their Theology (July 2013, 303 pages). To verify sources (standard Schaff edition of the Fathers), see the St. John Chrysostom section on the New Advent web page, “The Fathers of the Church”]

***

Baptism and Being “Born Again”

And for what reason, says one, if the laver take away all our sins, is it called, not a laver of remission of sins, nor a laver of cleansing, but a laver of regeneration? Because it does not simply take away our sins, nor simply cleanse us from our faults, but so as if we were born again. (Instructions to Catechumens, First, 3; NPNF1-9)

Baptism and Justification / Sanctification

Hear therefore what follows: “And such were some of you, but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the spirit of our God.” We promise to show you that they who approach the laver become clean from all fornication: but the word has shown more, that they have become not only clean, but both holy and just, for it does not say only “ye were washed,” but also “ye were sanctified and were justified.” What could be more strange than this, when without toil, and exertion, and good works, righteousness is produced? For such is the lovingkindness of the Divine gift that it makes men just without this exertion. (Instructions to Catechumens, First, 3; NPNF1-9)

Ver. 30. “Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified.” Now He justified them by the regeneration of the laver. “And whom He justified, them He also glorified” by the gift, by the adoption. (Homily XV on Romans 8:28: v. 8:30; NPNF1-11)

For, writing to the Corinthians, he says, “But ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor. vi. 11.) What then, tell me? were these not baptized into the Father? Then assuredly they were neither washed nor sanctified. (Homily XXX on 2 Corinthians 13:10, 3, v. 13:14; NPNF1-12)

. . . when we had committed many and grievous sins, and had not ceased from youth to extreme old age to defile our souls with ten thousand evil deeds, for none of these sins did He demand from us a reckoning, but granted us remission of them by the washing of Regeneration, and freely gave us Righteousness and Sanctification. (Homily XXVIII on John, v. 3:17;  NPNF1-14)

Baptism and Salvation

We have the sum and substance of the good things: through baptism we received remission of sins, sanctification, participation of the Spirit, adoption, eternal life. (Homily XL on Acts 18:18; NPNF1-11)

Yea, again I say, great indeed is Baptism, and without baptism it is impossible to obtain the kingdom. . . . It is impossible to be saved without it, . . . (Homily III on 1 Corinthians 1:10, 6; v. 1:14, 17; NPNF1-12)

Baptismal Regeneration

These verily are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed Head. . . . the others [priests] are the authors of our birth from God, even that blessed regeneration which is the true freedom and the sonship according to grace. . . . our priests have received authority to deal, not with bodily leprosy, but spiritual uncleanness—not to pronounce it removed after examination, but actually and absolutely to take it away. (Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood, Book III, 6; NPNF1-9)

. . . I see that our discourse now constrains us to something more necessary to say what baptism is, and for what reason it enters into our life, and what good things it conveys to us. But, if you will, let us discourse about the name which this mystic cleansing bears: for its name is not one, but very many and various. For this purification is called the laver of regeneration. “He saved us,” he saith, “through the laver of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” It is called also illumination, and this St. Paul again has called it, “For call to remembrance the former days in which after ye were illuminated ye endured a great conflict of sufferings;” and again, “For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and then fell away, to renew them again unto repentance.” It is called also, baptism: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.” (Instructions to Catechumens, First, 2; NPNF1-9)

For it creates and fashions us anew not forming us again out of earth, but creating us out of another element, namely, of the nature of water. For it does not simply wipe the vessel clean, but entirely remoulds it again. For that which is wiped clean, even if it be cleaned with care, has traces of its former condition, and bears the remains of its defilement, but that which falls into the new mould, and is renewed by means of the flames, laying aside all uncleanness, comes forth from the furnace, and sends forth the same brilliancy with things newly formed. (Instructions to Catechumens, First, 3; NPNF1-9)

And consider: a man has gotten grievous sins by committing murder or adultery, or some other crime: these were remitted through Baptism. For there is no sin, no impiety, which does not yield and give place to this gift; for the Grace is Divine. (Homily I on Acts 1:1-2; NPNF1-11)

For if they were full of the Spirit, it was of that which is from the Laver of Baptism. (Homily XV on Acts 6:8; NPNF1-11)

And in another sense, too, a mystery is so called; because we do not behold the things which we see, but some things we see and others we believe. For such is the nature of our Mysteries. I, for instance, feel differently upon these subjects from an unbeliever. . . . He hearing of a laver, counts it merely as water: but I behold not simply the thing which is seen, but the purification of the soul which is by the Spirit. He considers only that my body hath been washed; but I have believed that the soul also hath become both pure and holy; and I count it the sepulchre, the resurrection, the sanctification, the righteousness, the redemption, the adoption, the inheritance, the kingdom of heaven, the plenary effusion of the Spirit. (Homily VII on 1 Corinthians 2:6-7, 2; NPNF1-12)

In Baptism are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we immerse our heads in the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; then as we raise them again, the new man rises in its stead. (Homily XXV on John, v. 3:5;  NPNF1-14)

. . . He freely gave to them by Baptism entire remission of their sins. (Homily XXVII on John, v. 3:14;  NPNF1-14)

Eucharist and Salvation

. . . what shall we say of the Body of Him Who is God over all, spotless, pure, associate with the Divine Nature, the Body whereby we are, and live; whereby the gates of hell were broken down and the sanctuaries of heaven opened? how shall we receive this with so great insolence? Let us not, I pray you, let us not slay ourselves by our irreverence, but with all awfulness and purity draw nigh to It; and when thou seest It set before thee, say thou to thyself, “Because of this Body am I no longer earth and ashes, no longer a prisoner, but free: because of this I hope for heaven, and to receive the good things therein, immortal life, the portion of angels, converse with Christ; this Body, nailed and scourged, was more than death could stand against; this Body the very sun saw sacrificed, and turned aside his beams; for this both the veil was rent in that moment, and rocks were burst asunder, and all the earth was shaken. This is even that Body, the blood-stained, the pierced, and that out of which gushed the saving fountains, the one of blood, the other of water, for all the world.” . . . But these things I say, not to keep us from approaching, but to keep us from approaching without consideration. For as the approaching at random is dangerous, so the not communicating in those mystical suppers is famine and death. For this Table is the sinews of our soul, the bond of our mind, the foundation of our confidence, our hope, our salvation, our light, our life. When with this sacrifice we depart into the outer world, with much confidence we shall tread the sacred threshold, fenced round on every side as with a kind of golden armor.  (Homily XXIV on 1 Corinthians 10:13, 7-8, v. 10:23-24;  NPNF1-12)

Parents often entrust their offspring to others to feed; “but I,” saith He, “do not so, I feed you with Mine own flesh, desiring that you all be nobly born, and holding forth to you good hopes for the future. For He who giveth out Himself to you here, much more will do so hereafter. I have willed to become your Brother, for your sake I shared in flesh and blood, and in turn I give out to you the flesh and the blood by which I became your kinsman.” This blood causeth the image of our King to be fresh within us, produceth beauty unspeakable, permitteth not the nobleness of our souls to waste away, watering it continually, and nourishing it. . . . [it] watereth our souls, and worketh in them some mighty power. This blood, if rightly taken, driveth away devils, and keepeth them afar off from us, while it calleth to us Angels and the Lord of Angels. For wherever they see the Lord’s blood, devils flee, and Angels run together. . . . This blood is the salvation of our souls, by this the soul is washed, by this is beautiful, by this is inflamed, this causeth our understanding to be more bright than fire, and our soul more beaming than gold; this blood was poured forth, and made heaven accessible. . . . Christ hath purchased us with His blood, and adorned us with His blood. They who share this blood stand with Angels and Archangels and the Powers that are above, clothed in Christ’s own kingly robe, and having the armor of the Spirit. . . . Now as this is a great and wonderful thing, so if thou approach it with pureness, thou approachest for salvation; but if with an evil conscience, for punishment and vengeance. “For,” It saith, “he that eateth and drinketh unworthily” of the Lord, “eateth and drinketh judgment to himself” ( 1 Cor. xi. 29 ); since if they who defile the kingly purple are punished equally with those who rend it, it is not  unreasonable that they who receive the Body with unclean thoughts should suffer the same punishment as those who rent it with the nails.  (Homily XLVI on John, v. 6:52;  NPNF1-14)

How it is so, hear. “Verily I say unto you, Except a man eat My flesh, and drink My blood, he hath not eternal life in him.” Since the Jews had before asserted that this was impossible, He showeth not only that it is not impossible, but that it is absolutely necessary. Wherefore He addeth, “He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life.” ( Homily XLVII on John, v. 6:53-54;  NPNF1-14)

“As the Father liveth, so I live, and he that eateth Me shall live by Me.” And the “life” of which He speaketh is not life merely, but the excellent life; for that He spake not simply of life, but of that glorious and ineffable life, is clear from this. For all men “live,” even unbelievers, and uninitiated, who eat not of that flesh. Seest thou that the words relate not to this life, but to that other? And what He saith is of this kind: “He that eateth My flesh, when he dieth shall not perish nor suffer punishment”; He spake not of the general resurrection, (for all alike rise again,) but concerning the special, the glorious Resurrection, that which hath a reward. (Homily XLVII on John, v. 6:57;  NPNF1-14)

Faith Alone (Falsity of) / Antinomianism

This is why they are called martyrs, because when bidden to abjure (the faith), they endure all things, that they may speak the truth: and we, when we are bidden by our passions to abjure, let us not be overcome. Gold saith: Say that Christ is not Christ. Then listen not to it as to God, but despise its biddings. The evil lusts “profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him.” (Tit. i. 16.) For this is not to witness, but the contrary. And indeed that others should deny (Him) is nothing wonderful: but that we who have been called to bear witness should deny Him, is a grievous and a heinous thing: this of all things does the greatest hurt to our cause. “It shall be to (your)selves for a testimony.” (Luke xxi. 13), He saith: but (this is) when we ourselves stand to it firmly. If we would all bear witness to Christ, we should quickly persuade the greater number of the heathen. It is a great thing, my beloved, the life (one leads). . . . Wilt thou learn what a brilliancy there is in a good life, what a force of persuasion it has? . . . This has brought slanders on the awful articles of our creed, this has turned everything upside down, that no one takes any account of good living: this is a mischief to the faith. . . . The badness of the life is a mischief to the doctrine of the Resurrection, to that of the immortality of the soul, to that of the Judgment: many other (false doctrines) too it draws on with itself, fate, necessity, denial of a Providence. . . . This is why the devil has brought in the doctrine of Fate: this is why he has said that the world is without a Providence . . . (Homily XLVII on Acts 21:39-49; NPNF1-11)

Ver. 7. “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.” Here also he awakens those who had drawn back during the trials, and shows that it is not right to trust in faith only. For it is deeds also into which that tribunal will enquire. (Homily V on Romans 1:28: v. 2:7; NPNF1-11)

For “each of us shall give account of himself to God.” In order therefore that we may render up this account with a good defence, let us well order our own lives and stretch out a liberal hand to the needy, knowing that this only is our defence, the showing ourselves to have rightly done the things commanded; there is no other whatever. And if we be able to produce this, we shall escape those intolerable pains of hell, and obtain the good things to come; unto which may we all attain, by the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . (Homily XXI on 1 Corinthians 9:1, 11, v. 9:12;  NPNF1-12)

And let us make a little chest for the poor at home; and near the place at which you stand praying, there let it be put: and as often as you enter in to pray, first deposit your alms, and then send up your prayer; and as you would not wish to pray with unwashen hands, so neither do so without alms: since not even the Gospel hanging by our bed is more important than that alms should be laid up for you; for if you hang up the Gospel and do nothing, it will do you no such great good. (Homily XLIII on 1 Corinthians 16:1, 7, v. 16:9;  NPNF1-12)

. . . not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us. (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 1; NPNF1-12)

“And a virtuous mode of life,” for the doctrines need a mode of life . . . Attend to this, ye who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but thou art seeking and doing thy utmost to depart without it. For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith only. But we pray that thou shouldest have as well the confidence that cometh of good works. (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 8, v. 1:10-11; NPNF1-12)

For to believe is not all that is required, but also to abide in love. (Commentary on Galatians, v. 5:6;  NPNF1-13)

We have believed. This is a beginning; . . . we show our faith by our works . . . Let not the hearing, however, make us too much at our ease; for although He doth it for His own sake, yet notwithstanding He requires a duty on our part. If He says, “Them that honor Me I will honor, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed,” (1 Sam. ii. 30.) let us reflect that there is that which He requires of us also. (Homily II on Ephesians, v. 1:14;  NPNF1-13)

“It is the gift,” said he, “of God,” it is “not of works.” Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, saith he, hath required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all. His expression is, that faith saveth, but it is because God so willeth, that faith saveth. Since, how, tell me, doth faith save, without works? This itself is the gift of God. . . . He did not reject us as having works, but as abandoned of works He hath saved us by grace; so that no man henceforth may have whereof to boast. And then, lest when thou hearest that the whole work is accomplished not of works but by faith, thou shouldest become idle, observe how he continues, Ver. 10. “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.” (Homily IV on Ephesians, v. 2:8-10;  NPNF1-13)

Let us then believe to His glory, let us live to His glory, for one is no use without the other; when we glorify Him rightly, but live not rightly, then do we especially insult Him, because we are enrolled under Him as a Master and Teacher, and yet despise Him, and stand in no dread of that fearful judgment seat. It is no wonder that the heathen live impurely; this merits not such condemnation. But that Christians, who partake in such great mysteries, who enjoy so great glory, that they should live thus impurely, this is worst of all, and unbearable. (Homily VII on Philippians, v. 2:9-11;  NPNF1-13)

Ver. 16, 17. “Now our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and God our Father, which loved us, and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish them in every good work and word.” . . . For this is the comfort of Christians, to do something good and pleasing to God. . . . this is both His work and ours, so that it is in the way both of doctrines, and of actions. (Homily IV on 2 Thessalonians, v. 2:16-17;  NPNF1-13)

. . . if faith without a good life is unavailing, much more is the converse true. (Homily V on 1 Timothy, v. 1:20;  NPNF1-13)

. . . if we are always hearers, and never doers, we shall reap no advantage from what is said. (Homily II on 2 Timothy, v. 1:12;  NPNF1-13)

Faith therefore, without works, is fitly called a mere form without the power. For as a fair and florid body, when it has no strength, is like a painted figure, so is a right faith apart from works. (Homily VIII on 2 Timothy, v. 3:5;  NPNF1-13)

He too was one of the guests, for he had been invited; but because, after the invitation and so great an honor, he behaved with insolence towards Him who had invited him, hear what punishment he suffers, how pitiable, fit subject for many tears. For when he comes to partake of that splendid table, not only is he forbidden the least, but bound hand and foot alike, is carried into outer darkness, to undergo eternal and endless wailing and gnashing of teeth. Therefore, beloved, let not us either expect that faith is sufficient to us for salvation; for if we do not show forth a pure life, but come clothed with garments unworthy of this blessed calling, nothing hinders us from suffering the same as that wretched one. (Homily X on John, v. 1:13;  NPNF1-14)

“Is it then enough,” saith one, “to believe on the Son, that one may have eternal life?” By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, “Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” ( Matt. vii. 21 ); and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation. Therefore when He saith, “This is life eternal, that they may know Thee the only true God” ( c. xvii. 3 ), let us not suppose that the (knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation; we need besides this a most exact life and conversation. Since though he has said here, “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life,” and in the same place something even stronger, (for he weaves his discourse not of blessings only, but of their contraries also, speaking thus: “He that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him”;) yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation. And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this. Therefore he did not say, “This by itself is eternal life,” nor, “He that doth but believe on the Son hath eternal life,” but by both expressions he declared this, that the thing doth contain life, yet that if a right conversation follow not, there will follow a heavy punishment. (Homily XXXI on John, v. 3:35-36;  NPNF1-14)

. . . because He had said above, “He that heareth My words and believeth on Him that sent Me,” “is not judged,” lest any one should imagine that this alone is sufficient for salvation, He addeth also the result of man’s life, declaring that “they which have done good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgment.” (Homily XXXIX on John, v. 5:28-29;  NPNF1-14)

How long shall we neglect our own salvation? Let us bear in mind of what things Christ has deemed us worthy, let us give thanks, let us glorify Him, not by our faith alone, but also by our very works, that we may obtain the good things that are to come . . . (Homily XLVI on John, v. 6:52;  NPNF1-14)

. . . a right faith availeth nothing if the life be corrupt, both Christ and Paul declare . . . (Homily LXIII on John, v. 11:40;  NPNF1-14)

Faith is indeed great and bringeth salvation, and without it, it is not possible ever to be saved. It suffices not however of itself to accomplish this, . . . on this account Paul also exhorts those who had already been counted worthy of the mysteries; saying, “Let us labor to enter into that rest.” “Let us labor” (he says), Faith not sufficing, the life also ought to be added thereto, and our earnestness to be great; for truly there is need of much earnestness too, in order to go up into Heaven. (Homily VII on Hebrews, v. 4:11-13;  NPNF1-14)

Faith and Works

At the same time, however, that he had reached to this height of good works, he did not thereby grow confident; but was full of anxiety and fear, therefore also he fasted rigidly, . . . nor did he say anything like this to himself. “What further need have I of fasting? I have gotten the mastery of myself; I have overcome my lusts; I have mortified my body; I have affrighted demons; I have driven away the devil; I have raised the dead; I have cleansed lepers; I am become terrible to the adverse powers; what further need have I of fasting, or to seek safety from that quarter?” . . . in proportion as he abounded with innumerable good works, so much the more did he fear and tremble. And he learnt this spiritual wisdom from his preceptor; for even he, after he had been rapt into the third heaven, and transported to paradise; and had heard unutterable words; and taken part in such mysteries; and traversed the whole world, like some winged being, when he wrote to the Corinthians, said, I fear “lest by any means having preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” And if Paul was afraid after so many signal good works; . . . much more does it become us to fear; and the rather in proportion as we have stored up numerous good works. . . . For nothing is so apt to exalt to presumption as a conscience full of good works . . . (Homily I on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 9 and 15; NPNF1-9)

If thou art a Christian, believe in Christ; if thou believest in Christ, shew me thy faith by thy works. (Homily V on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 6; NPNF1-9)

Since, therefore, He rendereth to every man according to his works; for this reason He both implanted within us a natural law, and afterwards gave us a written one, in order that He might demand an account of sins, and that He might crown those who act rightly. Let us then order our conduct with the utmost care, and as those who have soon to encounter a fearful tribunal; knowing that we shall enjoy no pardon, if after a natural as well as written law, and so much teaching and continual admonition, we neglect our own salvation. (Homily XII on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 15; NPNF1-9)

But by repentance I mean, not only to forsake our former evil deeds, but also to show forth good deeds greater than those. (Homily X on Matthew 3:1-2, 7; NPNF1-10)

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them which despitefully use you: bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you. That ye may become like your Father which is in Heaven; for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” See how He hath set the highest pinnacle on our good deeds. For this is why He teaches not only to endure a blow, but to offer the right cheek also; not only to add the cloak to the coat, but to travel also two miles with him who compels thee to go one; in order that thou mightest receive with all facility that which is much more than these. (Homily XVIII on Matthew 5:38-40, 4; NPNF1-10)

“For if ye forgive men,” saith He, “your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not, neither will He forgive you.” . . . Since not by grace only, you see, ought we to become His children, but also by our works. And nothing makes us so like God, as being ready to forgive the wicked and wrong-doers; even as indeed He had taught before, when He spake of His “making the sun to shine on the evil and on the good.” (Homily XIX on Matthew 6:1, 11; NPNF1-10)

For as virtue even from things here was signified by Him to have her rewards, so vice also her penalties. For what I am ever saying, that I will say now also: that in both ways He is everywhere bringing about the salvation of His hearers on the one hand by zeal for virtue, on the other by hatred of vice. Thus, because there would be some to admire what He said, while they yield no proof of it by their works, He by anticipation awakens their fears, saying, Though the things spoken be good, hearing is not sufficient for security, but there is need also of obedience in actions, and the whole lies chiefly in this. (Homily XXIV on Matthew 7:21, 3; NPNF1-10)

But He seems to me to say these things, darkly hinting at the Jews, and amongst the believers at those who at first shone forth, but afterwards neglected virtue, and fell back; and those others again that have risen from vice, and have shot beyond many. For we see such changes taking place both with respect to faith and practice. Wherefore I entreat you let us use much diligence both to stand in the right faith, and to show forth an excellent life. For unless we add also a life suitable to our faith, we shall suffer the extremest punishment. . . . And all His parables also, as that of the virgins, that of the net, that of the thorns, that of the tree not bringing forth fruit, demand virtue in our works. . . . And why do I speak of the whole code. For even a part of it overlooked brings upon one great evils . . . they that have not fed the hungry, are for this condemned with the devil. (Homily LXIV on Matthew 19:27, 4; NPNF1-10)

For the former not having undertaken to obey, neither having become hearers of the law, showed forth their obedience in their works; and the latter having said, “All that the Lord shall speak, we will do, and will hearken,” in their works were disobedient. And for this reason, let me add, that they might not think the law would benefit them, He shows that this self-same thing condemns them, like as Paul also saith, “Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Homily LXVII on Matthew 21:12-13, 2; NPNF1-10)

For indeed both by works and by words must we show our good will towards Him. (Rom. vi. 4.) (Homily I on Acts 1:1-2; NPNF1-11)

But since after this grace, whereby we were justified, there is need also of a life suited to it, let us show an earnestness worthy the gift. And show it we shall, if we keep with earnestness charity, the mother of good deeds. (Homily VII on Romans 3:9-18: v. 3:31; NPNF1-11)

For since this discourse was about them that work and them that believe, he shows that the believer works more than the other, and requires more power, and great strength, and sustains no common degree of labor. For they counted faith worthless, as having no labor in it. Insisting then upon this, he shows that it is not only he that succeeds in temperance, or any other virtue of this sort, but he that displays faith also who requires even greater power. . . . Having said then, that he was justified by faith, he shows that he glorified God by that faith; which is a thing specially belonging to a good life. For, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father Which is in heaven.” (Matt. v. 16.) But lo! this is shown also to belong to faith! Again, as works need power, so doth faith. (Homily VIII on Romans 4:1-2: v. 4:20-21; NPNF1-11)

Let us then give thanks, that we belong to them that are being saved, and not having been able to save ourselves by works, were saved by the gift of God. But in giving thanks, let us not do this in words only, but in works and actions. (Homily XVIII on Romans 10:14-15: v. 11:6; NPNF1-11)

“To walk worthily,” he says, “of the Lord.” Here he speaks of life and its works, for so he doth also everywhere: with faith he always couples conduct. (Homily II on Colossians, v. 1:9-10;  NPNF1-13)

“But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Many consider that their own virtue is sufficient for their salvation, and if they duly regulate their own life, that nothing further is wanting to save them. But in this they greatly err, which is proved by the example of him who buried his one talent, for he brought it back not diminished but entire, and just as it had been delivered to him. It is shown also by the blessed Paul, who says here, “If any one provide not for his own.” The provision of which he speaks is universal, and relates to the soul as well as the body, since both are to be provided for. . . . And so says Isaiah, the chief of the Prophets, “Thou shalt not overlook thy kinsmen of thy own seed.” (Isa. lviii. 7, Sept.) . . . What is meant is this: The law of God and of nature is violated by him who provides not for his own family. But if he who provides not for them has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel, where shall he be ranked who has injured his relatives? With whom shall he be placed? But how has he denied the faith? Even as it is said, “They profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him.” (Tit. i. 16.) What has God, in whom they believe, commanded? “Hide not thyself from thine own flesh.” (Isa. lviii. 7.) How does he then believe who thus denies God? Let those consider this, who to spare their wealth neglect their kindred. It was the design of God, in uniting us by the ties of kindred, to afford us many opportunities of doing good to one another. When therefore thou neglectest a duty which infidels perform, hast thou not denied the faith? For it is not faith merely to profess belief, but to do works worthy of faith. (Homily XIV on 1 Timothy, v. 5:8;  NPNF1-13)

But what if his life be unclean, and his deeds evil? It is of such as these especially that Paul declares, that they are not true believers at all: “They profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him.” (Tit. i. 16.) (Homily XXVIII on John, v. 3:18;  NPNF1-14)

Justification, Infused (Sanctification)

For this end are fasting and Lent appointed, and so many days of solemn assemblies, auditories, prayers, and teachings, in order that by this earnestness being cleansed in every possible way from the sins which we had contracted during the whole year, we may with spiritual boldness religiously partake of that unbloody Sacrifice; so that should this not be the result, we shall have sustained so much labour entirely in vain, and without any profit. Let every one, therefore, consider with himself what defect he hath corrected, what good work he hath attained to; what sin he hath cast off, what stain he hath purged away; in what respect he has become better. (Homily XX on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 1; NPNF1-9)

For He came to set free from all evil deeds not the body only, but the soul too before the body. Thus, because in the heart we receive the grace of the Spirit, He cleanses it out first. (Homily XVII on Matthew 5:27-28, 2; NPNF1-10)

For it was not of grace only, that harlots entered in, but also of righteousness. For not, as continuing harlots, did they enter in, but having obeyed and believed, and having been purified and converted, so did they enter in. (Homily LXVII on Matthew 21:12-13, 3; NPNF1-10)

Peter calls the man irreproachable in all things one that “worketh righteousness,” [and Paul says] “touching the righteousness which is in the law found blameless.” (Homily VIII on 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, 4; NPNF1-12)

Ver. 11. “And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified.” . . . as if he said, “Consider from what evils God delivered us; how great an experiment and demonstration of loving-kindness He afforded us! He did not limit His redemption to mere deliverance, but greatly extended the benefit: for He also made thee clean. Was this then all? Nay: but He also “sanctified.” Nor even is this all: He also “justified.” Yet even bare deliverance from our sins were a great gift: but now He also filled thee with countless blessing. (Homily XVI on 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, 9, v. 6:11; NPNF1-12)

For His grace touches the very soul, and thence plucks up the sin by the root. Here is the reason why he that hath been forgiven by the king may be seen with his soul yet impure, but the soul of the baptized no longer so, but purer than the very sun-beams, and such as it was originally formed, nay rather much better than that. For it is blessed with a Spirit, on every side enkindling it and making its holiness intense. And as when thou art recasting iron or gold thou makest it pure and new once more, just so the Holy Ghost also, recasting the soul in baptism as in a furnace and consuming its sins, causes it to glisten with more purity than all purest gold. (Homily XL on 1 Corinthians 15:29, 2;  NPNF1-12)

But what then is “the Gospel of Righteousness?” That which maketh righteous. By these words he leadeth them to the desire of Baptism, showing that the Gospel is for the working not only of the remission of sins, but also of righteousness. . . . the manner of life ought to keep pace with the Gospel. . . . He saith, “I will dwell in them, and walk in them;” (Lev. xxvi. 12.) for when the mind is become righteous, when it hath put off its sins, it becometh God’s dwelling. (Rom. vi. 16.) (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 7-8, v. 1:10-11; NPNF1-12)

Ver. 24. “And put on the new man.” . . . Observe here how he calls this realizing of virtue, this bringing of it into being from nothing, a “creation.” . . .  He straightway created him, he means, to be a son: for this takes place from Baptism. This it is which is the reality, “in righteousness and holiness of truth.” There was of old a righteousness, there was likewise a holiness with the Jews. Yet was that righteousness not in truth, but in figure. For the being clean in body was a type of purity, not the truth of purity; was a type of righteousness, not the truth of righteousness. “In righteousness,” saith he, “and holiness,” which are “of truth.” . . . Now by righteousness is meant universal virtue. For hearken to Christ, how He saith, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in nowise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. v. 20.) And again, he is called righteous, who has no charge against him; for so even in courts of justice we say that that man is righteous, who has been unrighteously treated, and has not done unrighteously in return. If therefore we also before the terrible Tribunal shall be able to appear righteous one towards another, we may meet with some lovingkindness. . . . Our part then is, never to put off the garment of righteousness, which also the Prophet calls, “the garment of salvation” (Isa. lxi. 10.), that so we may be made like unto God. (Homily XIII on Ephesians, v. 4:24;  NPNF1-13)

And is then this Spirit within us? Yes, indeed, within us. For when we have driven away lying, and bitterness, and fornication, and uncleanness, and covetousness, from our souls, when we are become kind, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, when there is no jesting, when we have rendered ourselves worthy of it, what is there to hinder the Holy Spirit from coming and lighting upon us? And not only will He come unto us, but He will fill our hearts; and when we have so great a light kindled within us, then will the way of virtue be no longer difficult to attain, but will be easy and simple. (Homily XIX on Ephesians, v. 5:18-21;  NPNF1-13)

As, for instance, great were the sufferings of Job, yet he suffered with thankfulness; and he was justified, not because he suffered, but because in suffering he endured it thankfully. (Homily IX on 2 Timothy, v. 4:8;  NPNF1-13)

Justification, Ongoing 

And look at the carefulness of God; neither did he give the whole to thee then, nor withhold the whole, but gave part, and promised part. And for what reason did he not give the whole then? In order that thou mightest show thy faith about Him, believing, on his promise alone, in what was not yet given. And for what reason again did he not there dispense the whole, but did give the grace of the Spirit, and righteousness and sanctification? In order that he might lighten thy labors for thee, and by what has been already given may also put thee in good hope for that which is to come. (Instructions to Catechumens, Second, 1; NPNF1-9)

Do not then seek all at once, but gently, and by little and little, ascend this ladder, that leads thee up to Heaven. (Homily LXIII on Matthew 19:16, 3; NPNF1-10)

Merit

Knowing these things then, let us fortify ourselves with virtue on all sides, and thus we shall avert the wrath of God, and let us make the members of the body instruments of righteousness; . . . (Homily IV on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 12; NPNF1-9)

For as he who is living in iniquity, even before hell, hath punishment, being stung by his conscience; so the man who is rich in good works, even before the kingdom, will have the benefit of exceeding joy, in that he is nourished with blessed hopes. (Homily XVI on the Statues, to the People of Antioch, 13; NPNF1-9)

For this reason, the greater the good works we do, the less let us say of ourselves; this being the way to reap the greatest glory both with men and with God. Or rather, not only glory from God, but a reward, yea, a great recompense. Demand not therefore a reward that thou mayest receive a reward. Confess thyself to be saved by grace, that He may profess Himself a debtor to thee; and not for thy good works only, but also for such rightness of mind. (Homily III on Matthew 1:1, 8; NPNF1-10)

. . . if thou desire to become equal to the apostles, there is nothing to hinder thee. . . . let us imitate those things whereby the apostles became great. . . . From all worldly things, therefore, let us withdraw ourselves, and dedicate ourselves to Christ, that we may both be made equal to the apostles according to His declaration, and may enjoy eternal life; unto which may we all attain, by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ to whom be glory and might forever and ever. Amen. (Homily XLVI on Matthew 13:24-30, 4; NPNF1-10)

Let us become lovers of virtue. For so both before reaching the kingdom we shall reap the greatest benefits here, and when we are departed thither we shall partake of the eternal blessings; unto which God grant we may all attain by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . (Homily LXII on Matthew 19:1, 6; NPNF1-10)

For even if all were believers, still all were not alike, but were different in their merits. . . . For when they who labor more, do not receive the greater reward also, many become more listless. On this ground even in the kingdom, the honors are not equal, nor among the disciples were all alike, but the three were preëminent above the rest. And among these three again there was a great difference. For this is a very exact method observed by God even to the last. Hence, “one star differeth from another star in glory,” (1 Cor. xv. 41), it says. And yet all were Apostles and all are to sit on twelve thrones, and all left their goods, and all companied with Him; still it was the three He took. . . . all the righteous are not to enjoy the same lot, if they exceed others even a little . . . (Homily XXXI on Romans 16:5, v. 16:16; NPNF1-11)

Here then let us not ask for our crowns, lest when the crowns come in their season, we diminish our recompense. For as in the case of artificers, they who support themselves and work receive higher pay; while those who have their maintenance with their employers, are curtailed in no small part of the wages; so also in regard to the saints: he that doth immense good and suffers extreme evil hath his reward unimpaired and a far more abundant recompense, not only for the good things which he hath done, but also for the evil which he hath suffered. But he that enjoys rest and luxury here, hath not such bright crowns there. Let us not then seek for our recompense here. But “then” of all times let us rejoice, when doing well we suffer ill. For God hath in store for us in that world not only the reward of our good deeds, but that of our temptations also. (Homily XLIII on 1 Corinthians 16:1, 6, v. 16:9;  NPNF1-12)

. . . in saying “God will perfect it,” this also again is made their praise, who have drawn to them the grace of God, so that He aids them in going beyond human nature. And in another way also a praise, as that “such are your good deeds that they cannot be of man, but require the divine impulse.” (Homily I on Philippians, v. 1:6;  NPNF1-13)

. . . because the Pharisee only said, “I am not as this publican,” he destroyed all his merit. (Homily II on 2 Timothy, v. 1:12;  NPNF1-13)

Let us labor earnestly then to become clean; . . . (Homily XII on Hebrews, v. 7:8;  NPNF1-14)

For it is not merely freedom from sins which makes a man holy, but also the presence of the Spirit, and the wealth of good works. (Homily XVII on Hebrews, v. 10:1;  NPNF1-14)

Sacraments and Salvation

. . . what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. . . . what priests do here below God ratifies above . . . (Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood, Book III, 5; NPNF1-9)

Salvation and Works

How then can one be saved? it may be asked. By application of the countervailing remedies: alms, prayers, compunction, repentance, humility, a contrite heart, contempt of possessions. For God hath marked out for us innumerable ways of salvation, if we be willing to attend. Let us then attend, and let us every way cleanse out our wounds, showing mercy, remitting our anger against them that have displeased us, giving thanks for all things to God, fasting according to our power, praying sincerely, “making unto ourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness.” For so shall we be able to obtain pardon for our offenses, and to win the promised good things; whereof may we all be counted worthy, by the grace and love toward man of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and might forever and ever. Amen. (Homily XLI on Matthew 12:25-26, 6; NPNF1-10)

. . . in like manner now should I say Christ said this, from every motive to compel them, after the grace of God, to set their hopes of salvation and approval on the proof of their own good works. (Homily LXV on Matthew 20:17-19, 3; NPNF1-10)

Seest thou how not only the spoiler, and the covetous, nor only the doer of evil things, but also he that doeth not good things, is punished with extreme punishment. Let us hearken then to these words. As we have opportunity, let us help on our salvation, let us get oil for our lamps, let us labor to add to our talent. For if we be backward, and spend our time in sloth here, no one will pity us any more hereafter, though we should wail ten thousand times. . . . For this end God gave us speech, and hands, and feet, and strength of body, and mind, and understanding, that we might use all these things, both for our own salvation, and for our neighbor’s advantage. (Homily LXXVIII on Matthew 25:1-30, 2; NPNF1-10)

For it is upon works that both punishment and reward depend, not upon circumcision and uncircumcision. (Homily V on Romans 1:28: v. 2:10; NPNF1-11)

For he that is saved as a righteous man has a confidence accompanying his salvation. (Homily VIII on Romans 4:1-2: v. 1:1-2; NPNF1-11)

Let us then also glorify Him by faith as well as by works, that we may also attain to the reward of being glorified by Him. (Homily VIII on Romans 4:1-2: v. 4:21; NPNF1-11)

You see how he neither puts prayer without works, nor works without prayer. For after giving them credit for their obedience, then he prays; to show that we need both, our own part as well as God’s part, if we are to be duly saved. For it was not before only, but now too, even though we be great and in high esteem, we need grace from Him. (Homily XXXII on Romans 16:17-18, v. 16:20; NPNF1-11)

“Which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand. By which also ye are saved, in what word I preached unto you; if ye hold it fast, except ye believed in vain.”

Seest thou how he calls themselves to be witnesses of the things spoken? And he saith not, “which ye heard,” but, “which ye received,” demanding it of them as a kind of deposit, and showing that not in word only, but also by deeds and signs and wonders they received it, and that they should hold it safe. . . . by demonstration from his deeds they were fully persuaded, not by bare words . . . (Homily XXXVIII on 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, 2;  NPNF1-12)

. . . if we have been earnest, having in sufficiency the plea which comes from each man’s own works, we shall depart with confidence, and shall obtain the good things that are laid up for them that love God . . . (Homily XLII on 1 Corinthians 15:47, 5, v. 15:58;  NPNF1-12)

. . . so truly is your salvation also then more especially put into action, that is, is displayed, increased, heightened, when it hath endurance, when it suffereth and beareth all things nobly. So then the work of salvation consisteth not in doing evil, but in suffering evil. Moreover he saith not, “which worketh,” but, “which is wrought,” to show that together with their own willingness of mind, grace also which wrought in them did contribute much. (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 1; NPNF1-12)

“For good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.” Not merely that we should begin, but that we should walk in them, for we need a virtue which shall last throughout, and be extended on to our dying day. If we had to travel a road leading to a royal city, and then when we had passed over the greater part of it, were to flag and sit down near the very close, it were of no use to us. This is the hope of our calling; for “for good works” he says. Otherwise it would profit us nothing. . . . As the Apostle saith “and the sanctification, without which no man shall see the Lord.” (Heb. xii. 14.) (Homily IV on Ephesians, v. 2:10;  NPNF1-13)

“Through your supplication,” he adds, “and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ according to my earnest expectation and hope.” Behold the humble-mindedness of this blessed one; he was striving in the contest, he was now close to his crown, he had done ten thousand exploits, for he was Paul, and what can one add to this? still he writes to the Philippians, I may be saved “through your supplication,” I who have gained salvation through countless achievements. (Homily III on Philippians, v. 1:18-20;  NPNF1-13)

Ver. 19. “That they may lay hold,” he says, “on eternal life.” For the doing of good works can secure the enjoyment of eternal life. (Homily XVIII on 1 Timothy, v. 6:19;  NPNF1-13)

Salvation, Instant (Falsity of)

Tell me, what wouldest thou? “not that ye give heed to me, but that ye ‘work out your own salvation with fear and trembling’”; for it is impossible for one, who lives devoid of fear, to set forth any high or commanding example; and he said not merely “with fear,” but “and with trembling,” which is an excessive degree of fear. Such fear had Paul: and therefore he said, I fear “lest having preached to others, I myself should be rejected.” (1 Cor. ix. 27.) For if without the aid of fear temporal things can never be achieved, how much less spiritual matters; for I desire to know, who ever learnt his letters without fear? who has become a proficient in any art, without fear? But if, when the devil does not lie in the way, where indolence is the only obstacle, so much of fear is necessary merely in order that we may master that indolence which is natural to us; where there is so fierce a war, so great hindrances, how can we by any possibility be saved without fear? (Homily VIII on Philippians, v. 2:12-16;  NPNF1-13)

But “one thing,” says he, “forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before, I press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” For what made him reach forward unto the things which are before, was his forgetting the things that are behind. He then, who thinks that all is accomplished, and that nothing is wanting to him for the perfecting of virtue, may cease running, as having apprehended all. But he who thinks that he is still distant from the goal, will never cease running. This then we should always consider, even though we have wrought ten thousand good deeds; for if Paul, after ten thousand deaths, after so many dangers, considered this, how much more should we? For I fainted not, saith he, although I availed not, after running so much; nor did I despair, but I still run, I still strive. This thing only I consider, that I may in truth advance. . . . “For our citizenship is in heaven” (Philip. iii. 20.), there is the prize; . . . Teach thy feet to be sure, for there are many slippery places, and if thou fallest, straightway thou losest much. But yet if thou fall, rise up again. Even thus mayst thou obtain the victory. . . . Look upward, where the prize is; the sight of the prize increaseth the determination of our will. The hope of taking it suffereth not to perceive the toils, it maketh the distance appear short. And what is this prize? No palm branch; but what? The kingdom of heaven, everlasting rest, glory together with Christ, the inheritance, brotherhood, ten thousand good things, which it is impossible to name. (Homily XII on Philippians, v. 3:13-14;  NPNF1-13)

. . . even after sanctification we have yet need of much faith, that we may not be shaken. (Homily III on 2 Thessalonians, v. 2:14;  NPNF1-13)

. . . and in after time there needs for what remains much earnestness. In order to preserve our purity, it is not sufficient for us merely to have been baptized and to have believed, but we must if we will continually enjoy this brightness, display a life worthy of it. This then is God’s work in us. To have been born the mystical Birth, and to have been cleansed from all our former sins, comes from Baptism; but to remain for the future pure, never again after this to admit any stain belongs to our own power and diligence. (Homily X on John, v. 1:12;  NPNF1-14)

Salvation, Moral Assurance of

Tribulations, that is, are so far from confuting these hopes, that they even prove them. For before the things to come are realized, there is a very great fruit which tribulation hath—patience; and the making of the man that is tried, experienced. And it contributes in some degree too to the things to come, for it gives hope a vigor within us, since there is nothing that so inclines a man to hope for blessings as a good conscience. Now no man that has lived an upright life is unconfiding about things to come, as of those who have been negligent there are many that, feeling the burden of a bad conscience, wish there were neither judgment nor retribution. What then? do our goods lie in hopes? Yes, in hopes—but not mere human hopes, which often slip away, . . . No such lot is ours: our hope is sure and unmoveable. (Homily IX on Romans 4:23: v. 5:4-5; NPNF1-11)

Thou too hast believed, thou hast performed many good deeds, thou hast mounted high: secure thyself, be in fear as thou standest, and keep a wary eye, lest thou fall thence. For manifold are the spiritual sorts of wickedness which aim to cast thee down. (Eph. vi. 12.) “Serve the Lord with fear,” he says, “and rejoice unto Him with trembling.” (Ps. ii. 11.) And how is rejoicing compatible with “trembling”? Yet this, be assured, is the only rejoicing; for when we perform some good work, and such as beseemeth those who do anything “with trembling,” then only do we rejoice. (Homily VIII on Philippians, v. 2:12-16;  NPNF1-13)

Suffering, Redemptive (Participation in Christ’s Suffering)

. . . the conduct of Paul far exceeds this. For all the rest leaving their own blessings chose to be partakers in the afflictions of others: but Paul did a thing much greater. For it was not that he consented to be a partaker in others’ misfortunes, but he chose himself to be at all extremities that other men might enjoy blessings. Now it is not the same for one who lives in luxury to cast away his luxury and suffer adversity, as for one himself alone suffering adversity, to cause others to be in security and honor. For in the former case, though it be a great thing to exchange prosperity for affliction for your neighbor’s sake, nevertheless it brings some consolation to have partakers in the misfortune. But consenting to be himself alone in the distress that others may enjoy their good things,—this belongs to a much more energetic soul, and to Paul’s own spirit. (Homily XXV on 1 Corinthians 10:25, 4, v. 11:1;  NPNF1-12)

Having spoken of one, and that the chief ground of comfort and consolation, namely, having fellowship [by sufferings] with Christ: he layeth down as second this which he now mentions, namely, that the salvation of the disciples themselves was procured thereby. “Faint not, therefore, he says, nor be confounded and afraid because we are afflicted; for this same thing were rather a reason for your being of good cheer: for had we not been afflicted, this had been the ruin of you all.” How and wherein? For if through lack of spirit and fear of danger we had not preached unto you the word whereby ye learned the true knowledge, your situation had been desperate. . . . For, saith he, the greater the intensity of our persecutions, the greater should be the increase of your good hope; because the more abundant also in proportion is your salvation and consolation. (Homily II on 2 Corinthians 1:6-7, 1; NPNF1-12)

For He did not only die for us, but even after His death He is ready to be afflicted for your sakes. He is eagerly and vehemently set upon showing that He is even now exposed to peril in His own Body for the Church’s sake, and he aims at this point, namely, ye are not brought unto God by us, but by Him, even though we do these things, for we have not undertaken a work of our own, but His. And it is the same as if there were a band which had its allotted leader to protect it, and it should stand in battle, and then when he was gone, his lieutenant should succeed to his wounds until the battle were brought to a close. Next, that for His sake also he doeth these things, hearken: “For His Body’s sake,” he saith, assuredly meaning to say this: “I pleasure not you, but Christ: for what things He should have suffered, I suffer instead of Him.” See how many things he establishes. Great, he shows, is the claim upon their love. As in his second Epistle to the Corinthians, he wrote, saying, “he committed unto us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. v. 20.); and again, “We are ambassadors on behalf of Christ; as though God were entreating by us.” So also here he saith, “For his sake I suffer,” that he may the more draw them to Him. That is, though He who is your debtor is gone away, yet I repay. For, on this account he also said, “that which is lacking,” to show that not even yet does he consider Him to have suffered all. “For your sake,” he saith, and even after His death He suffers; seeing that still there remains a deficiency. (Homily IV on Colossians, v. 1:24;  NPNF1-13)

Ver. 10. “Therefore I endure all things,” he says, “for the elect’s sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” Behold another incentive. I endure these things, he says, not for myself, but for the salvation of others. It was in my power to have lived free from danger; to have suffered none of these things, if I had consulted my own interest. On what account then do I suffer these things? For the good of others, that others may obtain eternal life. What then dost thou promise thyself? He has not said, simply on account of these particular persons; but “for the elect’s sake.” If God has chosen them, it becomes us to suffer everything for their sakes. “That they also may obtain salvation.” By saying, “they also,” he means, as well as we. For God hath chosen us also; and as God suffered for our sakes, so should we suffer for their sakes. Thus it is a matter of retribution, not of favor. On the part of God it was grace, for He having received no previous benefit, hath done us good: but on our parts it is retribution, we having previously received benefits from God, suffer for these, for whom we suffer, in order “that they may obtain salvation.” (Homily IV on 2 Timothy, v. 2:10;  NPNF1-13)

. . . he says, “If we be dead with Him, we shall also live with Him.” For say, shall we partake with Him in things laborious and painful; and shall we not in things beneficial? But not even a man would act thus, nor, if one had chosen to suffer affliction and death with him, would he refuse to him a share in his rest, if he had attained it. But how are we “dead with Him”? This death he means both of that in the Laver, and that in sufferings. For he says, “Bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus” (2 Cor. iv. 10.); and, “We are buried with Him by baptism into death” (Rom. vi. 4.); and, “Our old man is crucified with Him”; and, “We have been planted together in the likeness of His death.” (Rom. vi. 5, 6.) But he also speaks here of death by trials: and that more especially, for he was also suffering trials when he wrote it. (Homily V on 2 Timothy, v. 2:11-14;  NPNF1-13)

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

. . . do according to thy power, with what has been entrusted to thee, to extend the holiness which thou hast received, and to make the righteousness which comes from the laver brighter, and the gift of grace more radiant; even as therefore Paul did, increasing all the good things which he received by his subsequent labors, and his zeal, and his diligence. (Instructions to Catechumens, Second, 1; NPNF1-9)

. . . if we be careless, we shall not be able to obtain salvation, no not even by the help of others; if, on the other hand, we be watchful, we shall be able to do this by ourselves, and by ourselves rather than by others. Yes; for God is more willing to give His grace to us, than to others for us; that we by endeavoring ourselves to do away His wrath, may both enjoy confidence towards Him, and become better men. Thus He had pity on the Canaanitish woman, thus He saved the harlot, thus the thief, when there was none to be mediator nor advocate. (Homily V on Matthew 1:22-23, 7; NPNF1-10)

. . . let us labor for a little while, that we may win the perpetual and imperishable crowns; unto which may we all attain, by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and might forever and ever. Amen. (Homily XXXIX on Matthew 12:1, 4; NPNF1-10)

Only let us also bring ourselves into a state meet for the grace from above, and all becomes easy. (Homily IV on Acts 2:1-2; NPNF1-11)

“And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together.” (v. 31.) This was the proof that they were heard, and of His visitation. “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” . . . Do you see that together with the grace of God they also contributed their part? For everywhere it ought to be well observed, that together with the grace of God they do their part likewise. . . . again, that “they were all together.” (ch. iii. 6.) But in this place, having mentioned that they were heard, the sacred writer proceeds to speak also of them, what virtue they showed. Moreover, he is just about to enter upon the narrative of Sapphira and Ananias, and with a view to show the detestable conduct of that pair, he first discourses of the noble behavior of the rest. (Homily XI on Acts 4:23; NPNF1-11)

But when you hear of grace, think not that the reward of resolve on our part is thereby cast aside; for he speaks of grace, not to disparage the labor of resolve on our part, but to undermine . . . the haughtiness of an insolent spirit . . . Do not thou then, because that Paul hath called this a gift of grace, grow supine. (Homily II on Romans 1:8: v. 11; NPNF1-11)

Ver. 18. “For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make Gentiles obedient by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God.” . . . Nor can it be said that I have been entrusted indeed with the charge, but yet have not executed it. Or rather, it is not I that have executed, but Christ. Wherefore also it is in Him that I boast, not about common things, but about spiritual. . . . See how violently he tries to show that the whole is God’s doing, and nothing his own. For whether I speak anything, or do anything, or work miracles, He doth all of them, the Holy Spirit all. And this he says to show the dignity of the Holy Spirit also. . . . the exhibition of actions and conversation, the dead that were raised, the devils that were cast out, and the blind that were healed, and the lame that leaped, and the other marvellous acts, all whereof the Holy Spirit wrought in us. (Homily XXIX on Romans 15:14, v. 15:18; NPNF1-11)

Ver. 9. For we are God’s fellow-workers: “ye are God’s husbandry, God’s building.” Seest thou how to them also he hath assigned no small work, having before laid it down that the whole is of God? . . . Ver. 10. “According to the Grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise master-builder I laid a foundation.”

. . . in speaking of himself as wise, he allowed not this to stand as though it were something of his own; but first attributing himself entirely unto God, . . . (Homily VIII on 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, 6, v. 3:9-10;  NPNF1-12)

Ver. 2. “Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful:” that is, that he do not appropriate to himself his master’s goods, that he do not as a master lay claim for himself but administer as a steward. For a steward’s part is to administer well the things committed to his charge: not to say that his master’s things are his own; but, on the contrary, that his own are his master’s. Let every one think on these things, both he that hath power in speech and he that possesses wealth, namely, that he hath been entrusted with a master’s goods and that they are not his own; let him not keep them with himself, nor set them down to his own account; but let him impute them unto God who gave them all. . . . And Paul, no less, when he had said, “I labored more abundantly than they all,” (1 Cor. xv. 10.) added, “yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” Elsewhere also, setting himself strongly against the same persons, he said, “For what hast thou which thou didst not receive?” (C. iv. 7.) “For thou hast nothing of thine own, neither wealth, nor speech, nor life itself; for this also is surely the Lord’s. (Homily X on 1 Corinthians 3:18-19, 5, v. 4:2;  NPNF1-12)

Ver. 10. “But by the grace of God I am what I am.” Seest thou again another excess of humility? in that the defects he imputes to himself, but of the good deeds nothing; rather he refers all to God. Next, lest he might hereby render his hearer supine, he saith, “And His grace which was bestowed upon me was not found vain.” And this again with reserve: in that he said not, “I have displayed a diligence worthy of His grace,” but, “it was not found vain.” “But I labored more abundantly than they all.” He said not, “I was honored,” but, “I labored;” . . . For if he labored more, the grace was also more: but he enjoyed more grace, because he displayed also more diligence. (Homily XXXVIII on 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, 7, v. 15:10-11;  NPNF1-12)

. . . “for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do;” (1 Cor. Xvi. 10.) . . . he elsewhere saith, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh.” (Col. i. 24.) Yet neither here nor there is it from boldness or any presumptousness. For as they wrought greater miracles than He according to that saying of His, “he that believeth on Me shall do greater works than these,” (John xiv. 12.) but all is of Him that worketh in them; so did they suffer also more than He, but all again is of Him that comforteth them, and fitteth them to bear the evils that betide them. (Homily I on 2 Corinthians 1:1, 4, 2, 4;  NPNF1-12)

And indeed it is no small praise, that God should work in one. For if He is “no respecter of persons,” as indeed He is none, but is looking to our purpose when He aids us in good deeds, it is evident that we are agents in drawing Him to us; so that even in this view he did not rob them of their praise. . . . But if God will perfect, then neither shall there be much labor, but it is right to be of good courage, for that they shall easily accomplish all, as being assisted by Him. (Homily I on Philippians, v. 1:6;  NPNF1-13)

Do thou be bold; “for it is God that worketh in you.” If then He worketh, it is our part to bring a mind ever resolute, clenched and unrelaxed. “For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to work.” “If He does Himself work in us to will, how dost thou exhort us? for if He works Himself even the will, the words, which you speak to us, have no meaning, ‘that ye have obeyed’; for we have not ‘obeyed’; it is without meaning that thou sayest, ‘with fear and trembling’; for the whole is of God.” It was not for this that I said to you, “for it is He that worketh in you both to will and to work,” but my object was to relieve your anxiety. If thou wilt, in that case He will “work in thee to will.” Be not affrighted, thou art not worsted; both the hearty desire and the accomplishment are a gift from Him: for where we have the will, thenceforward He will increase our will. For instance, I desire to do some good work: He has wrought the good work itself, and by means of it He has wrought also the will. Or he says this in the excess of his piety, as when he declares that our well-doings are gifts of grace. (Homily VIII on Philippians, v. 2:12-16;  NPNF1-13)

And thus will ye make the labor light for us, in all things taking a part with us, and stretching out a hand, and becoming sharers and partakers, both in one another’s salvation, and each one in his own. (Homily XXX on Hebrews, v. 12:15;  NPNF1-14)

Works, Good (in Grace)

For say, whence can an excellent life proceed? From no source, except from a Divine Power working in us. (Homily XLVII on Acts 21:39-49; NPNF1-11)

For just as food maintaineth our life, and by this ruleth the body, so if we have good works, we shall have the Spirit; and if we have the Spirit, we shall also have good works. As also, on the other hand, if we have no works, the Spirit flieth away. But if we be deserted by the Spirit, we shall also halt in our works. (Homily XXVIII on Romans 15:8, v. 15:13; NPNF1-11)

Works of the Law / “New Perspective on Paul”

Ver. 32. “Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law.” . . . For this he says is the cause of their destruction: “Because it was not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law,” that they wished to be justified. And he does not say, “by works,” but, “as it were by the works of the Law,” to show that they had not even this righteousness. (Homily XVI on Romans 9:1: v. 9:32; NPNF1-11)

*
***

*

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.

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 InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Summary: I compile extensive writings from St. John Chrysostom (c. 345-407): all of which express his opposition to the novel 16th century innovation of “faith alone”.

2024-03-19T18:15:43-04:00

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 11th 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.

*****

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you’ve received benefit from this or any of my 4,500+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (email address) on the sidebar to the right, above the 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 concretely supports my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

*****

This is a response to Jordan’s YouTube video, “The Church Fathers on Prayer to Saints” (11-16-20).

3:43 I [am] going to spend some time in the early Church and go back and ask the question: did the earliest Christians pray to the saints? Is there evidence that the earliest Christians had an understanding of prayer that was broader than prayer as an act of worship directed toward God [and] that there was another kind of invocation of the saints or angels which was not an act of worship? 

Clearly so (as to the last sentence), as I hope to demonstrate.

4:32 Did the early Church view prayer as something that could be offered to God as well as the saints, or did they view it in the way that the Reformers would have viewed prayer: as something that is an act of worship that is directed solely toward God?

Catholic invocation of the saints is — by and large — simply asking them to intercede on our behalf to God because we don’t view departed saints as different than other human beings on earth, with respect to simply asking them to pray for us, and we are following James 5 where it is stated that “the prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (KJV), using the example of the prophet Elijah, who could change the weather with his prayers.” These saints have love for us, and they have great power. This is why we ask for their intercession. It’s not an act of worship at all. It’s “going to the holy person to ask them to pray for us.”

Protestants implicitly recognize this all the time when they go to their ministers and pastors, specifically, in order to ask them to pray on their behalf. I think that the premise underneath that act is thinking that the pastor’s prayers would have more effect; i.e., that he is closer to God. Otherwise, they could simply “go straight to God” as a certain Protestant polemic stresses. Catholics agree that we can always and should often pray directly to God. We just think that it’s equally biblical (as I have shown with many Bible passages) to ask relatively more holy people to pray for us, and that this includes perfected saints in heaven, who are more alive than we are, and aware of happenings on the earth.

6:09 if you look at the apostolic fathers [and] ask the question: do they speak of a prayer to the saints? The answer is, no they don’t.

I agree. Anglican patristic scholar J. N. D. Kelly explained that this doctrine was slow to develop:

A phenomenon of great significance in the patristic period was the rise and gradual development of veneration for the saints, more particularly for the Blessed Virgin Mary.  . . . Earliest in the field was the cult of martyrs . . . At first it took the form of the reverent preservation of their relics and the annual celebration of their ‘birthday’. From this it was a short step, since they were now with Christ in glory, to seeking their help and prayers, and in the third century evidence for the belief in their intercessory power accumulates. . . . By the middle of the same [4th] century, according to Cyril of Jerusalem, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs were commemorated in the liturgy ‘so that by their prayers and intercessions God may receive our supplications’. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, fifth revised edition, 1978, 490; my italics)

This, of course, poses no problem for the Catholic view. Doctrines develop at different rates, and among the ones that were slow in the early centuries were the fine points of trinitarianism and the canon of the Bible (with the first complete NT list coming as late as 367 with Athanasius). The doctrine of the communion of saints was almost fully developed (if we are to accept Kelly’s scholarly judgment) before either of those doctrines. If that’s not a problem for Protestantism, neither is this for Catholicism. In fact, I would say (and so would Cardinal Newman: one of Protestant apologists’ favorite “whipping boys”) that this would be fully expected, or at least not surprising.

7:19 We do have to recognize that when we’re looking at the earliest writings, they’re short, they’re brief, [and] they’re not going to cover every aspect of Christian doctrine, so if there were prayers to the saints in Ignatius and Polycarp and figures like that, we don’t have evidence for it. But it’s not like we have some extensive corpus that we’re looking at, so it’s kind of hard to go [to] those letters and say definitively, “well they never mention it so they didn’t believe in it” . . .  that’s certainly not enough to say, “therefore no Christians are praying to the saints in this era.”

I completely agree. Well-stated.

15:00 [Irenaeus] “nor does she perform anything by means of angelic invocations”. There is no performance of anything by means of angelic invocations like the Gnostics are teaching, or by incantations or by any other wicked curious art. So he doesn’t say, “yeah there are wicked angelic invocations and there are righteous angelic invocations or invocations of the saints.” He seems to wrap all of this up in a package that’s going to be thrown out and then he goes on to to give his correction. He says, “but, directing her prayers to the Lord who made all things,” so he’s saying we don’t offer our prayers to these created things like angels; instead we offer our “prayers to the one who made all things in a pure sincere and straightforward spirit calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Nor does she perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error.

Context doesn’t particularly help interpret this in any more depth (per our topic). But his use of the terms, “any other” certainly leads me to believe that he was — contrary to Jordan’s take — referring only to wicked “angelic invocations” — which doesn’t logically rule out a possibility of righteous “angelic invocations.” The New Advent site, which contains the 38-volume Schaff edition of the fathers, allows one to easily search them. So I will now search “invocation” in Against Heresies, to see if we can find anything of relevance.

One search result sheds light on what Irenaeus meant above. In Book I, ch. 24, concerning doctrines of Saturninus and Basilides, he states: “These men, moreover, practise magic; and use images, incantations, invocations, and every other kind of curious art.” It seems to be the same sort of biblically forbidden “magic” practices that he referred to in II, 32, 5. Likewise, in the Preface of Book II (1) he refers to beliefs of Gnostics: “their invocations and their mysteries.” Cf. I, 13, 2-3. So Irenaeus sanctioning direct prayer to the Lord doesn’t necessarily rule out asking saints to pray to the same Lord. We know for sure that he is expressing what all Christians agree with: it’s good to pray directly to God. But we don’t see that asking saints to intercede is different than (ultimately) going to God in prayer in the first place.

16:34 Irenaeus . . . says the church does not offer prayers to created things; we don’t invoke created things, we invoke the one who created all things and we do that through our Lord Jesus Christ. So this seems to be very clear evidence very early on.

I don’t see that he was expressing this thought. Here’s the continuation of his section that I cited above:

If, therefore, the name of our Lord Jesus Christ even now confers benefits [upon men], and cures thoroughly and effectively all who anywhere believe in Him, but not that of Simon, or Menander, or Carpocrates, or of any other man whatever, it is manifest that, when He was made man, He held fellowship with His own creation, and did all things truly through the power of God, according to the will of the Father of all, as the prophets had foretold. But what these things were, shall be described in dealing with the proofs to be found in the prophetical writings.

Irenaeus expressed that we can and should pray to God, and that the Gnostics engaged in wicked occultic practices. That much is certain. He didn’t necessarily say that any and all invocations of anyone besides God are always impermissible. Jordan is, I believe, superimposing that onto the text without enough information to do that, in my opinion. I would say that Irenaeus may not have believed in invocation of the saints, but that this section doesn’t prove that. We don’t know enough to know for sure, and Irenaeus died too “early”: at the beginning of the 3rd century: the time in which Kelly observed that “evidence for the belief in [saints’] intercessory power accumulates.”

Jordan addresses Justin Martyr (d. 165), who lived far too early in the development of the communion of saints (by Kelly’s timeline), and Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215) and Tertullian (d. c. 225), who appeared to reject it. He decided not to deal in this talk with Origen (d. c. 254), about whom two Protestant reference works assert:

In arguing for it [i.e., seeking saints’ help and prayers] Origen appealed to the communion of saints, advancing the view [his footnote: “Esp. in Iesu nave hom. 16, 5″] that the Church in heaven assists the Church on earth with its prayers . . . (Kelly, ibid., 490)

Origen was apparently the first of the Fathers to give the cult of martyrs an express theological foundation. He placed it within the doctrine of the Communion of Saints and taught that the prayer of the saints is efficacious in so far as the faithful follow in their footsteps. (F. L. Cross & E. A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 1983, 1227)

Origen comes right after Tertullian, and in my book on the Church fathers, I documented the espousal of invocation of saints and angels from Cyprian, Ephraem, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssa, Ambrose, John Chrysostom,  Jerome, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Pope Leo the Great, Theodoret, and Gregory the Great. I have over seven pages devoted to Augustine’s view of the saints (he being the great “patron saint” of Protestantism), in my book, The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology (2012). On the invocation of saints in particular, he stated:

There was a fellow-townsman of ours at Hippo, Florentius, an old man, religious and poor, who supported himself as a tailor. Having lost his coat, and not having means to buy another, he prayed to the Twenty Martyrs, who have a very celebrated memorial shrine in our town, begging in a distinct voice that he might be clothed. . . . he, walking on in silence, saw on the shore a great fish, gasping as if just cast up, . . . on cutting up the fish, the cook found a gold ring in its belly; . . . (City of God, xxii, 8)

. . . upon recollection of the place in which are deposited the bodies of those whom they love, they should by prayer commend them to those same Saints, who have as patrons taken them into their charge to aid them before the Lord. (On the Care of the Dead, 6)

That’s just one of many.

35:21 The problem with . . . “patristic quote mining”: in especially [a] kind of pop-up Roman Catholic apologetics is, you could do a lot with random citations of fathers taken out of context, and make them sound very Roman Catholic. You can write a whole book that’s just every positive thing any church father says about Peter and stick them all together and make it sound like the papacy, but it’s not, because [if] you actually look at those quotes in context, [they have] nothing to do with the papacy. But if you have a bunch of strung together isolated quotes it can sound like that.

To be fair, Jordan goes on to say that some Protestants do that, too, and he cited an example of a book about the fathers and justification. I agree with him that some on both sides do some very shoddy work with the Church fathers.

36:39 [Lutheran theologian Martin] Chemnitz [1522-1586] . . . does a much more thorough and fair job of dealing with the Church fathers than almost anybody does today.

Funny; that wasn’t my impression at all when I critiqued him back in 2007:

*
*
He was trying to make out that all these fathers believed in sola Scriptura and they just don’t. It’s a losing battle. I wouldn’t recommend that any Protestant apologist try to prove that.  It’s a complete waste of time and a futile effort if there ever was one. Jordan then makes general statements about development of doctrine:
*
38:03  others have this principle as well that those ideas which are earlier are better than those ideas which are later, and I don’t know [that] this is generally true; oftentimes it is very true, but there are other times where it’s not quite as true, because . . . there’s a little lack of clarity on [some] issues which really does, I think, need some time to develop: at least develop in terms of what language we want to use. I would say the same about the doctrine of justification, as it takes some time to to hash out what what language best explains what is this reality in scripture that we are saved through faith, not by works, but we also need to do works. How does this work which is a difficult thing to put together, I think, in terms of figuring out what language you want to use and how you relate all these ideas together, so it does take some time.
*
And of course Catholics say the same about the invocation and intercession of saints. It took time to develop (though not as long as several other — and more important — doctrines). It involves several complexities and nuances and subtleties, just as justification does. In fact, Jordan goes on to say that “it’s not until the Reformation that those ideas [regarding justification] are really hashed out in their fullness, I think, and I think in a good way” (39:03).

So he’s perfectly content to assert that almost 1500 years needed to pass before anyone properly understood justification in its full Protestant sense; therefore, I submit that the same thing applies (in a much smaller time frame) to the issue of invocation and intercession of saints. If one accepts development in the first place, then one ought to incorporate it across the board in examining any given doctrine. To put it another way, it’s not unusual at all that such a nuanced doctrine as this took a few centuries to fully develop. Many other doctrines (and several that both sides accept), took much longer.

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ 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.

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 InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: The metaphor of Hebrews 12:1, referring to “witnesses” is comparing saints in heaven to spectators in an arena. This photograph is from StockSnap (taken on 30 May 2014) [Pixabay / CC0 public domain]

Summary: Lutheran apologist Jordan Cooper contends that early Church fathers opposed the invocation of saints. For many, that was true. I analyze his reasoning.

2024-03-18T14:59:57-04:00

Including Gavin’s Exceptionally Ecumenical & Irenic Statements About the Catholic Church & Catholics

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, 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 25th reply to his material.

*****

I will be responding to roughly the first half of Gavin’s video, “Why I Don’t Accept The Papacy” (1-1-21).

0:43 Let me just say at the beginning here — because I’m going to be criticizing Roman Catholic theology — I want to start off by saying several things that I admire about my Roman Catholic friends and about the Catholic tradition. . . . “irenic” means aiming for peace and that is really important to me now. Irenicism doesn’t mean that we don’t contend for truth  . . . I think arguing for truth is really healthy, but it’s really important to me to have these conversations in as peaceable a way as possible. Part of that is just the state of dialogue in our culture right now. I think those of us who are followers of Christ need to model something better . . . I think that’s what the gospel calls us to do. . . . I need to be gracious and I need to be kind because of what God has done for me . . . I know I talk about that a lot, but it’s not just sort of a stylistic thing for me or icing on the cake . . . First Corinthians 13 says without love we’re a “resounding cymbal or clanging gong.” Love is essential for these conversations. I really believe that. 

Amen! I appreciate this very much, and I’m sure many Catholics do.  So often critiques of Catholicism and/or Catholics (and vice versa) are done in a spirit of both ignorance and (usually also) malice and hostility. Well done! I’ve always thought, too, that we can and should have these theological discussions in a jovial, mutually respective manner, and learn from each other, while we are also defending our own views and critiquing the other side’s position. I have sought to use the same approach in my 27 years online, and before. So it’s refreshing to see this. Music to my ears . . .

2:39 Catholics — generally speaking (obviously these are generalizations) —  do better than Protestants [in] philosophy and logic; especially in the Thomist tradition, and a lot of evangelicals are kind of iffy on philosophy, which is unfortunate. Number two [and three]: literature and the arts. Almost all [of] my favorite writers are Catholic: Malcolm Muggeridge,  G. K. Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers [she was actually Anglican], J. R. R. Tolkien, many others; architecture and liturgy and . . . the aesthetics of worship. Not all Protestants are bad at that, but many are. Number four: history and Latin. Latin is my favorite language, . . . and number five: social and political philosophy and even certain areas of moral philosophy . . . whatever you think about the Roman Catholic view on contraception, they’ve thought about that way more than many evangelicals have, and I admire their consistency and I admire [the fact] that they don’t just move with the times. 

Excellent. Returning the “favor,” I would point to my own articles, My Respect for Protestants / Catholic Ecumenical Principles [2001; addendum: 1-8-03] ,Gratefulness for My Evangelical Protestant Background [3-18-08], and What I Like About Calvinism and Calvinists [June 2009].

3:41 I don’t know if it’s weird to mention those things, but I’m just trying to be as productive as possible in the way we talk about these things.

5:44 the main text I think that is at play when we’re talking about the papacy is Matthew 16. And the thing that’s been so helpful for me
*
6:32 one of the big questions is what is this rock? Is it Peter as a person or in his office, [or] is it the confession Peter just made or is it Jesus, and then if it’s Peter, is it Peter in such a way that could support the doctrine of the papacy or something that would get you to the doctrine of the papacy
*
In my many treatments of this topic, I have cited many Protestants in support of Peter being the Rock. This is believed by a remarkable number of eminent Protestant exegetes and reference sources, including New Bible Dictionary, Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin Vincent), Wycliffe Bible Commentary, New Bible Commentary, Anchor Bible (William F. Albright and C. S. Mann), Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (R. T. France), Expositor’s Bible Commentary (D. A. Carson), Eerdmans Bible Commentary, Henry Alford, Herman N. Ridderbos, Albert Barnes, David Hill, M. Eugene Boring, William Hendriksen, John A. Broadus, Carl Friedrich Keil, Gerhard Kittel, Oscar Cullmann, Peake’s Commentary, Gerhard Maier, J. Knox Chamblin, Craig L. Blomberg, William E. McCumber, Donald A. Hagner, Philip Schaff, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, The Layman’s Bible Commentary, Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985; article by D. W. O’Connor, a Protestant), Robert McAfee Brown, and Richard Baumann.
*
If we want to look at the claim that Jesus’ phrase “keys of the kingdom” has Isaiah 22 in mind, the following Protestants agree with that: W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Roland de Vaux, Craig S. Keener, M. Eugene Boring, The Interpreter’s Bible, S. T. Lachs, R. T. France, Ralph Earle (Beacon Bible Commentary), J. Jeremias, F. F. Bruce, Oscar Cullman, New Bible Dictionary, T. W. Manson, Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Martin Luther, New Bible Commentary.
F. F. Bruce, perhaps the most famous and well-regarded of the above group, wrote:
The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . . (Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (The Hard Sayings of Jesus [Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity, 1983], 143-144)

If the argument is indeed so weak, as Gavin thinks, why do so many Protestant scholars agree with key and essential elements of it? They may deny papal succession, but that is a separate discussion. I think they have inadequate reasons to deny the succession and that it follows logically from Petrine primacy.

6:57 you need infallible teaching coming from this office 

Acts 15:28: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” That’s not only infallible; it’s inspired. Peter was the key figure at the council. After “there had been much debate” (15:7), Peter spoke about how God revealed to him the inclusion of the Gentiles and stated, “by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel” (15:7). And he led because God had given him — as the leader — a vision, described a few chapters earlier. When he was done the text says, “And all the assembly kept silence” (15:12). Then James the bishop of Jerusalem, acting in effect as master of ceremonies, says, “Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles” (15:14) and “with this the words of the prophets agree” (15:15). He adds nothing to Peter’s declaration; he only reiterated it. The “apostles and elders” worked together in the council with Peter, just as ecumenical councils function. Paul then went out and proclaimed the decree of the Jerusalem Council far and wide (Acts 16:4).

7:02 among the Church fathers you have all three of those major views represented: that the rock is Jesus, that the rock is Peter, [and] that the rock is Peter’s confession, and then what’s so interesting is you have a lot of hybrid views where it’s some combination thereof. And when we get into that we need to be asking what’s the logical relationship between these, so if it’s both Peter and Jesus how is that the case; how is it both of them and why is it both of them?

Jesus is the ultimate leader of the Church, of course, but Peter is the human leader on earth, who has successors. See my paper, Can Christ & Peter Both be “Rocks”? [4-21-22]. Gavin then mentions different views among the Church fathers concerning who the “rock” is. I would make note of two of the most respected Protestant exegetes of our time:

R. T. France wrote:
Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v. 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . (in Leon Morris, General Editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)
D. A. Carson, another highly respected Protestant exegete, observed:
[I]f it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (in Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke [Matthew: D. A. Carson], 368)

Here are fourteen explicit examples of Church fathers calling Peter the rock (one could also say that he was the rock based on his confession of faith; but nevertheless, he was the rock upon which the Church was established; that both things were true; also that Jesus was the rock, too, but in a different sense):

Tertullian, writing around 200-220, stated that “Peter . . . is called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built” (Prescription against Heretics, 22).

Origen writing around 230-250, called Peter “that great foundation of the Church, and most solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church” (In Exod. Hom. v. n. 4, tom. ii) and “Upon him (Peter)  . . . the Church was founded” (In Epist. ad Rom. lib. v. c. 10, tom. iv) and “Peter upon whom is built Christ’s Church” (T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.).

St. Cyprian, c. 246, wrote about “Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built” (Epistle 54 to Cornelius, 7).

Firmilian, c. 254, wrote about “one Church, which was once first established by Christ on a Rock” (Inter Ep. S. Cyp. Ep. lxxv).

Aphraates (c. 336) stated that “the Lord . . . set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the Church” (Homily 7:15, De Paenitentibus).

St. Ephraem (c. 350-370) called Peter “the foundation of the holy Church” (Homilies 4:1).

St. Hilary of Poitiers in 360 held that Peter was “the foundation-stone of the Church” (On the Trinity, Bk. VI, 20).

St. Gregory of Nazianzen (370) stated that Peter “is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church” (T. i. or. xxxii. n. 18).

St. Gregory of Nyssa (371) wrote that Peter was “the Head of the Apostles . . . (upon him) is the Church of God firmly established. . . . that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church” (Alt. Or. De S. Steph.).

St. Basil the Great (371) stated that Peter “received on himself the building of the Church” (Adversus Eunomius 2:4).

St. Epiphanius (c. 385): “upon which (Rock) the Church is in every way built . . . Foundation of the house of God” (Adv. Haeres.).

St. Ambrose (c. 385-389): “whom when He styles a Rock, He pointed out the Foundation of the Church” (T. ii. l. iv. De Fide, c. v. n. 56).

St. John Chrysostom (c. 387): “Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church . . . that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples” (T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paenit. n. 4).

St. Jerome (385): “Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church” (Letters 41, 2).

St. Augustine got this wrong, as Gavin noted. We don’t regard Church fathers as infallible.

10:13 there’s many other passages that identify Jesus as the rock on which the church is built

Yes, because He’s God. I cited five of these passages in my paper about there being two “Rocks”. It doesn’t preclude an earthly leader. Jesus calls Himself the Good Shepherd. Does that mean there are no pastors (“shepherds”) because Jesus is the Ultimate One? No. The Bible doesn’t employ false dichotomies and the “either/or” approach that Protestants do. Christians were called “living stones” by Peter in 1 Peter 2:5.  Paul writes about “the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph 2:19-20).

Thus, “apostles and prophets” being the foundation doesn’t contradict Jesus also being the foundation.  Then we come back to the question of, “who was the foremost apostle”? In terms of leadership, Peter was, because Jesus commissioned Him by name, even changing his name to symbolize this leadership, and made him the preeminent human foundation of the Church. We are “co-workers” with God (“we are God’s fellow workers”: 1 Cor 3:9; “Working together with him”: 2 Cor 6:1; “the Lord worked with them”: Mk 16:20).

Gavin mentioned that Epiphanius thought the rock was Peter’s confession (10:34), but I just showed above how he thought Peter was the rock, too (both things can be true, because they don’t exclude each other). The fathers thought in biblical and Hebraic “both/and” terms. They didn’t think like Greek rationalists.

10:42  when people go that route they almost always identify Peter as the rock because of his confession

Yes, of course they do, because that is what the passage strongly implies. Peter proclaimed that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). Then Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you” (Mt 16:17). Then Jesus told him, “you are Peter [“Rock”], and on this rock I will build my church” (Mt 16:18). It looks — at least prima facie — like Peter was made the rock upon whom the Church was built because he exhibited the sort of faith that the leader of the Church would necessarily have to have. Both things are true. We don’t have to choose. So if so many fathers highlighted his faith, and so many focused on Peter himself, both were right! And those who say that Jesus is the rock are also right; but that is expressed in other passages, not this one.

Moreover, we see Peter exercising his role as leader in the early Church, after Pentecost. Now that He had received the indwelling Holy Spirit, he could really fulfill his role as Jesus intended, with power and zeal: Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity, and by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15). Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22). He takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22). He’s the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36). This sermon contained a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) – an example of “binding and loosing.” He works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12). He utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11).

His shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15). Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40). Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6). Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48). He is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison – Acts 12:1-17). The whole Church (strongly implied) offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5). He’s the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24). Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38). He takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41). He commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48). He was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38, 43).

If all of that doesn’t indicate that he was the leader, what in the world would prove it, pray tell? The Catholic view harmonizes perfectly with the biblical data. The Bible clearly presents him as both the leader of the disciples and of the early Church. St. Paul’s the foremost evangelist and theologian. But he’s not leading the entire Church (in terms of an office) as Peter did. Jesus didn’t say He would build His Church upon Paul. Rather, God said, “he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15). Peter is called the foundation of the Church and told to feed Jesus’ sheep. And Jesus prayed for him specifically, that his faith wouldn’t fail. And he gave him (only) the “keys of the kingdom of heaven.” It goes on and on.

13:44 the other passages that are generally brought into discussion — John 21 and Luke 22 for example — these passages just aren’t clear or explicit, and I’ve looked at the fathers on these as well and none of them are correlating these texts with peter’s rank or status within the church or something like that. Pretty consistently they’re looking at these passages as having to do with Peter’s restoration after his
14:11 It would be a it would be a proof of the papacy perhaps if Jesus said to Peter in John 21, “feed my sheep as my vicar” or if he said in Luke

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ 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.

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 InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: St. Peter, by Paolo Emilio Besenzi (1608-1656) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I reply to Baptist apologist Gavin Ortlund’s arguments against the papacy: his analyses of Matthew 16 and John 21. I note the cumulative NT evidence for the papacy.

2024-03-09T16:10:44-04:00

Incl.  “Papal” & Patristic Exegesis of Matthew 16 and John 21; Relationship of the Bible & the Church

Pastor Mike Winger is the featured teacher of BibleThinker online ministry. He graduated from the School of Ministry at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and was ordained in 2006. He has since served in various ministries with a primary focus on being a youth pastor. Mike has since transitioned into laboring full time with BibleThinker to provide free teaching content worldwide. He also has a thriving YouTube channel called Learn to Think Biblically (688K subscribers). Mike is strongly committed to a careful and thoughtful study of the Bible with a view toward answering skeptics’ challenges with reason and Scripture. I use RSV for Bible verses. Mike’s words will be in blue.

*****

I’m responding to Mike’s video entitled, “Why Catholicism is WRONG” (8-24-15). It has received 316,481 views, as of 3-8-24.

1:06 if their claim’s accurate, then I can’t interpret the Bible only they can

In fact, the Catholic Church has required one particular view of a Bible passages for only nine passages in the entire Bible. This is an annoying myth that we hear all the time. Indeed, the orthodox, faithful Catholic interpret doctrines that he derives from Scripture with the help and guidance of the Church and sacred tradition, but so what? Every Protestant does the same thing within their own denominational tradition. No five-point Calvinist, for example, can find a verse in the Bible which proves apostasy or falling away, or one that teaches God’s desire for universal, rather than limited atonement (and there are many such passages). He can’t deny total depravity in any text, or irresistible grace. We all have orthodox and dogmatic boundaries that we abide by. No Christian of any stripe could say that John 1:1 does not teach the deity and Godhood of Jesus.

1:13 the Bible is extra it is not essential

This is sheer nonsense. The Catholic Church reveres the Bible as much as any Protestant denomination or individual. I remember reading The Battle for the Bible (1977) by Protestant scholar Harold Lindsell, back in the day (the early 80s) when I was a fervent evangelical, and his making the point that the Catholic Church had a doctrine of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture — including after Vatican II, which changed no doctrines — that was as “high” as any Protestant view (it really struck me at the time, and I was delighted to learn of it). Catholics also think that sacred, apostolic tradition and the Church are infallible authorities, and we do because the Bible itself teaches this: notably in Acts 15 (the Jerusalem Council) and in 1 Timothy 3:15: both of which — closely examined — teach the infallible authority of the Church (which is directly contrary to sola Scriptura). This is not sola ecclesia, as it has been caricatured (by Mike and many others). It’s a three-legged-stool rule of faith: Bible-Church-Tradition: all of which are in complete harmony with each other.

1:19 Church statements are what’s essential 

They are, but not exclusively so, as he makes out, and in a manner that is hardly different from each Protestant denomination, that has creeds and confessions that they adhere to, just as we have our doctrines that we believe. Lutherans have the Book of Concord. Presbyterians have the Westminster Confession. Anglicans have the 39 Articles, etc. No one can claim that they aren’t “essential” too in their own domains.

1:19 when the Catholic theologian uses the Bible to try to prove Catholic doctrine it’s just an exercise. It’s not that they think they have to [do]. They don’t believe they have to use the Bible; they’re just doing that to try to convince you to try to convince others

This is pure mythology. How would he even go about proving such a ludicrous claim? You notice that he doesn’t cite anything to corroborate his charge. It simply comes from his own cynical anti-Catholic bias. No Catholic decree or argument from a Catholic theologian or apologist has ever stated that the Bible is unimportant or merely optional in doing theology. To the contrary, official Catholic documents like Vatican II, the Catholic Catechism, or papal encyclicals are literally filled with Scripture (at least as much if not more than the typical Protestant sermon). It’s clear from the sheer volume that Scripture is central in the whole enterprise.

2:37 the Roman Catholic Church bases their case . . .  for their authority [on] that single pillar that holds up all the doctrine of the church: “we declare it, therefore it’s true.”

First of all, we don’t say something is true simply because the Church declares it (which would be circular reasoning). What we actually say is that the Church declares it because it is based on the Bible and the history of doctrine and reason. Secondly, if there is any single “pillar” it’s the Bible; particularly this verse: “. . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). If the Catholic Church is indeed that, again, it’s not because it merely makes the claim, but because the Bible said so, and we have many other biblical and historical reasons for identifying the Catholic Church as the one true Church of the Bible, that Jesus set up, with Peter as the first earthly leader.

2:59 Matthew 16 . . . whatever it does teach it certainly does not teach that Peter was the first pope 

Matthew 16:16-19 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” [17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

At the very least he was clearly intended to be the leader of the new Church, of which he was even said to be the foundation (“Rock”). R. T. France, widely considered to be one of the best New Testament exegetes, stated: “Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority . . . The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests . . . the steward, who regulates its [the house’s] administration . . . an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty” (Vol. 1: Matthew, in Leon Morris, General Editor., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, 256). That sounds pretty “papal,” doesn’t it? Yet it’s a commentary from a Protestant on the New Testament text (words of Jesus). Here are what other Protestants say, along similar lines:

Craig S. Keener wrote: “The image of keys (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration / probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament [Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993], 256, 90). The great scholar F. F. Bruce stated that “in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward” (The Hard Sayings of Jesus [Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity, 1983], 143-144). T. W. Manson, in his book, The sayings of Jesus: as recorded in the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke (London: SCM Press, 1954 ed., p. 205 ) stated that Peter was — as shown by by Jesus’ words — “God’s vicegerent” who would “declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community” and whose decisions would be “confirmed by God”.

3:31  in fact 80% of the time the Church Fathers disagree with the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16

First of all, the fathers aren’t the ultimate authorities in exegesis, and if some of them got this wrong (from our Catholic perspective) it is no problem for our system at all. Biblical exegesis is an independent field of study and can be done today, regardless of what was believed about specific passages in the past. The above arguments from Protestant exegetes stand on their own. I have made the case from the Bible because both sides accept it as inspired, infallible revelation. Precisely because it is inspired, neither side can dismiss it. It has to be grappled with. The above is what some of the very best Protestant exegetes have stated about Matthew 16 and what it means (in a nutshell, Peter was given extraordinary authority by Jesus). Mike just whips up a negative bald sentence; I provided significant and solid Protestant scholarship. It’s a huge difference in methodology.

There were, in fact, many Church fathers (far more than 20%) who thought Peter was the rock, the foundation of the Church and its leader, based on Matthew 16. Here are 18 of them:

Tertullian, writing around 200-220, stated that “Peter . . . is called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built” (Prescription against Heretics, 22).

St. Hippolytus wrote around 225: “By this Spirit Peter spoke that blessed word, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established” (The Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9).

Origen writing around 230-250, called Peter “that great foundation of the Church, and most solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church” (In Exod. Hom. v. n. 4, tom. ii) and “Upon him (Peter)  . . . the Church was founded” (In Epist. ad Rom. lib. v. c. 10, tom. iv) and “Peter upon whom is built Christ’s Church” (T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.).

St. Cyprian, c. 246, wrote about “Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built” (Epistle 54 to Cornelius, 7).

Firmilian, c. 254, wrote about “one Church, which was once first established by Christ on a Rock” (Inter Ep. S. Cyp. Ep. lxxv).

Aphraates (c. 336) stated that “the Lord . . . set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the Church” (Homily 7:15, De Paenitentibus).

St. Ephraem (c. 350-370) called Peter “the foundation of the holy Church” (Homilies 4:1).

St. Hilary of Poitiers in 360 held that Peter was “the foundation-stone of the Church” (On the Trinity, Bk. VI, 20).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 363), commenting on Matthew 16, calls peter “the foremost of the apostles and chief herald of the Church” (Catechetical Lecture 11, 3).

St. Optatus (c. 370), commenting on the same passage, wrote that Peter was “to be preferred before all the Apostles” and was “The Head of the Apostles” (De Schism. Don. l. vii. n. 3).

St. Gregory of Nazianzen (370) stated that Peter “is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church” (T. i. or. xxxii. n. 18).

St. Gregory of Nyssa (371) wrote that Peter was “the Head of the Apostles . . . (upon him) is the Church of God firmly established. . . . that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church” (Alt. Or. De S. Steph.).

St. Basil the Great (371) stated that Peter “received on himself the building of the Church” (Adversus Eunomius 2:4).

St. Epiphanius (c. 385): “upon which (Rock) the Church is in every way built . . . Foundation of the house of God” (Adv. Haeres.).

St. Ambrose (c. 385-389): “whom when He styles a Rock, He pointed out the Foundation of the Church” (T. ii. l. iv. De Fide, c. v. n. 56).

St. John Chrysostom (c. 387): “Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church . . . that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples” (T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paenit. n. 4).

St. Jerome (385): “Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church” (Letters 41, 2).

St. Cyril of Alexandria (424): “the church . . . over this he sets Peter as shepherd” (Comm. on Matt., ad. loc.).

Mike then brings up John 21, where Jesus tells Peter to “feed my sheep,” etc., and then he claims:

5:31 whatever Jesus is doing here, this says nothing about a papacy . . . if you didn’t know about the papacy, you’d never read the Bible and come up with that doctrine; it just would never happen. It would never occur to you. It’s completely artificially foisted upon the Scriptures; pushed onto the Bible. We need clear teachings, not vague implications.

It is clear teaching; I completely disagree. In the context of many Bible passages already indicating a profound leadership of Peter among the disciples and in the early Church (I found fifty such), it’s significant that Jesus uses an agricultural shepherd and sheep parallel, which is a metaphor for being a pastor. The word “shepherd” is used 15 times in the NT in this fashion. So what does Jesus do here? He was with seven of the disciples (Jn 21:2) in a post-Resurrection appearance.

But He singled out Peter and charged him to “feed my lambs” (21:15) and “tend my sheep” (21:16) and “feed my sheep” (21:17), which could quite plausibly be taken to mean His entire Church, since He uses the words “the sheep” or “sheep” 14 times in John 10: meaning, believers in the Church. There He was talking about Himself as the Ultimate Shepherd. But there are also earthly shepherds (pastors or priests or bishops). Jesus didn’t say this to all seven disciples present. He said it to Peter only. That must have some significance. It fits into the scenario of him being the leader of the Church.

After all, Jesus had already said (Mt 16) that He would build His Church upon Peter, as the Rock. This exhortation perfectly fits in with that. It’s the same sort of thing in Luke 22:32, where Jesus says, “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” and “strengthen your brethren” to Peter alone. I believe it’s the only time Jesus is said to have prayed for one person, who is named. And guess who it is? Just a “coincidence”: it’s once again Peter.

Many Protestant commentators say that Peter was singled out and asked three times because he denied Jesus three times. That may very well be true, but if so, it doesn’t follow that my interpretation is null and void. He still encouraged him to be a pastor of what is arguably the entire Church; and it goes along with Luke 22:32 and Matthew 16:18-19. Moreover, the parallel to the denials would be when Jesus asked him three times, “do you love Me?” But the other parts are not parallels to the denials. Thus, this attempted dismissal of the larger “papal” meaning of the passage fails in its evasive purpose.

Mike makes a bald analysis and a skeptical claim with no reasoning whatever. I reason through it, do exegesis, including cross-referencing, and make an actual argument. Which is the more impressive method of the two?

6:02 Jesus here is putting Peter in a shepherding position, yes absolutely, but does . . . feeding the sheep and tending the lambs make him like the ultimate apostle who’s in charge of all the other apostles?
*
The Bible massively indicates that he was the leader of the disciples and of the early Church. Protestants don’t even deny that. It’s too obvious. Here he is shown to be that again by being singled out. All of them would be shepherds but Jesus talks to Peter alone. It makes perfect sense. If He built His Church upon Peter, then Peter would certainly be charged with feeding the “sheep” en masse.
*
6:15 in fact Acts 20:28 it talks about all of the elders in Ephesus and all of them are told that they’re to shepherd the Church of God
*
Mike answers himself here. This was strictly a local context: elders in Ephesus (Acts 20:17) caring for that flock. The phrase, “church of God” can refer to only a local church (see, e.g., 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1). Peter didn’t have a specific flock when Jesus told Him to feed His sheep. So it seems to be a universal shepherding, which also is what we see in the nature of his first epistle, which is to a large group (“To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia”: 1:1), not one local church, as with Paul’s letters. I wrote in August 2022 about this:

Pontus was in the north of Turkey and largely surrounding the Black Sea north of it. Galatia was in the center of Asia Minor (Turkey),  Cappadocia in its southeast, and Bithynia in its northwest. “Asia” in the NT refers to Asia Minor.

So Peter was writing to Christians in a vast area. The size of Turkey is about a thousand miles from west to east, and 300-400 miles from north to south. This is the area, and also east and north of the Black Sea, that was the recipient of Peter’s first epistle. The letter is filled with decidedly “papal” commands: and Peter assumes sublime authority throughout his epistle:

“gird up your minds” (1:13 [RSV]); “be holy yourselves in all your conduct” (1:15); “love one another earnestly from the heart” (1:22); “So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander” (2:1); “long for the pure spiritual milk” (2:2); “abstain from the passions of the flesh” (2:11); “Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles” (2:12); “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution” (2:13); “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (2:17); ” wives, be submissive to your husbands” (3:1); “Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman” (3:7); “have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.” (3:8); “Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling” (3:9); “in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense” (3:15: apologetics!); ” keep your conscience clear” (3:16); “keep sane and sober for your prayers” (4:7); “hold unfailing your love for one another” (4:8); “Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another” (4:9); “As each has received a gift, employ it for one another” (4:10); “Tend the flock of God that is your charge” (5:2: addressed specifically to other bishops); “you that are younger be subject to the elders” (5:5); “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God” (5:6); “Be sober, be watchful” (5:8); and “Resist him, firm in your faith” (5:9).

This is altogether the scope and nature of a bishop’s teaching, with authority, and to Christians over an area a thousand miles wide and 400 miles from bottom to top. That’s not “local church” stuff!

8:57  the earliest interpretation where someone says that this is papal in John 21 is from 680 AD, over 600 years later. Then someone finally has the idea that this is papal and who is it? Pope Agatho; a very self-serving claim  for his own power to increase by tying it to this scripture.

Nice try. Here his claim is much more broad: no Church father at all thought the passage was “papal”; that is, indicative of Peter being the leader of the early Church, and we have to get all the way to 680 AD to find anyone who thinks this way. One wonders if Mike did any research on the matter. It’s likely that he simply read this in an old anti-Catholic book (filled with the usual history-challenged myths) and passed it along. All I have to do is find one Church father to refute this sweeping claim, but I have found nine:

Origen (c. 216): “the Chief Authority as regards the feeding of the sheep was delivered to Peter” (T. iv. l. 5, in Ep. ad Rom. n. 1).

St. Cyprian (c. 246): “to the same [Peter] He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, . . . yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one.” (Treatise 1: On the Unity of the Church, 4).

St. Ephraem (c. 350-370): “The Lord . . . delivered his flock to Simon . . . Three pledges he took from him as shepherd, that with love he should shepherd his lambs, and should visit his sheep with mercy, and should guard his ewes with fear.” (HVirg. 36, 6; CSCO 223, Syr. 94).

Ambrosiaster (c. 380-384): “After the Saviour all were included in Peter; for He constituted him to be their head, that he might be the shepherd of the Lord’s flock” (Quaest. 75, ex N. Test. in App. St. August. tom. iii. 2894).

St. Ambrose (385): Therefore did Christ also commit to Peter to feed His flock” (Ib. in. Ps. cxviii. [Mem] n. 3).

St. Epiphanius (c. 385): “He heard from the same God, ‘Peter, feed My lambs;’ to him was intrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master.” (Tom. ii. In Anchorat. n. 9).

St. John Chrysostom (c. 387): “He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren . . . [and] says, ‘If Thou lovest Me, preside over the brethren’ . . . He sets the presidency over his own sheep . . . He appointed this man (Peter) teacher . . . of the world.” (In Joan. Hom. lxxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii.).

“What advantage, pray, could be greater than to be seen doing those things which Christ with his own lips declared to be proofs of love to Himself? For addressing the leader of the apostles He said, Peter, do you love me? and when he confessed that he did, the Lord added, if you love me tend my sheep. The Master asked the disciple if He was loved by him, not in order to get information (how should He who penetrates the hearts of all men?), but in order to teach us how great an interest He takes in the superintendence of these sheep. This being plain, it will likewise be manifest that a great and unspeakable reward will be reserved for him whose labors are concerned with these sheep, upon which Christ places such a high value. . . . For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors. . . . Will you, then, still contend that you were not rightly deceived, when you are about to superintend the things which belong to God, and are doing that which when Peter did the Lord said he should be able to surpass the rest of the apostles, for His words were, Peter, do you love me more than these? . . . one is required to preside over the Church, and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls . . .” (On the Priesthood, Book II, 1-2)

St. Augustine (c. 400): “. . . the Lord commended his sheep to Peter himself to feed . . . when Christ speaks to one, unity is commended — and to Peter for the first time, because Peter is first among the apostles.” (Sermo. 295).

“[T]here are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.” (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, ch. 4, 5).

“The Lord, indeed, had told His disciples to carry a sword; but He did not tell them to use it. But that after this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation.” (Contra Faustum, Book XXII, 70).

“And again the Lord asked this question, and a third time He asked it. And when he asserted in reply his love, He commended to him the flock. For each several time the Lord Jesus said to Peter, as he said, I love you; Feed My lambs, feed My little sheep. In this one Peter was figured the unity of all pastors . . .” (Sermon 97 on the New Testament, 2).

“Peter generally stands for a figure of the Church.” (Sermon 25 on the New Testament, 10; cf. Sermon 96; Sermon 88, 4).

“For He says to Peter, in whom singly He forms the Church; Peter, do you love Me? He answered, Lord, I do love You. Feed My sheep. ” (Sermon 87 on the New Testament, 3).

St. Peter Chrysologus (432): “He commends His sheep to be fed by Peter, in His stead” (Serm. vi. In Ps. xcix).

Mike continues his comments on this passage from John 21:

9:45 Peter did not claim to be the Pope. He’s not treated as the Pope. He didn’t wield the power of the papacy. If Peter wasn’t the Pope, how can his successor be the Pope? If Peter’s not the Pope, nobody is; there is no Pope!

Well, we need only look at the above patristic passages regarding Jesus telling Peter to feed His sheep. How is Peter described?:

Chief Authority; head; shepherd of the Lord’s flock; presidency over the brethren; teacher . . . of the world; leader of the apostles; superintendence of these sheep; sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors; surpass the rest of the apostles; one is required to preside over the Church; entrusted with the care of so many souls; first among the apostles; charge to feed His sheep down to the present episcopate; pastor of the Church; the leader [like Moses] of the congregation; In this one Peter was figured the unity of all pastors; Peter generally stands for a figure of the Church; Peter, in whom singly He forms the Church; His sheep to be fed by Peter, in His stead.

If all of these descriptions aren’t “papal” what in the world is? How much evidence does one need, pray tell? How many more ways are necessary to describe what is clearly leadership of the entire Church? Nothing else is required. This is what many eminent Church fathers believed about John 21. Yet Mike claimed that no one thought this way until 680 AD. All these men were a bunch of ignorant, spiritually vacant dopes, I guess: to see all of this in a passage that Mike thinks is wholly insignificant in terms of Church government and the papacy. Make your choice, folks: Mike, or the Bible’s clear teaching and Church fathers like Cyprian, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, and Augustine. And then we can add the descriptions of Peter in the fathers, in interpreting Matthew 16:

the Rock whereon the Church was to be built; the rock of the Church; that great foundation of the Church; solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church; Peter upon whom is built Christ’s Church; upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built; Church . . . established by Christ on a Rock; the foundation; the rock and structure of the Church; the foundation of the holy Church; the foundation-stone of the Church; the foremost of the apostles; chief herald of the Church; preferred before all the Apostles; Head of the Apostles; entrusted with the Foundations of the Church; Rock upon which the Lord built His Church; received on himself the building of the Church; upon which (Rock) the Church is in every way built; Foundation of the house of God; the Foundation of the Church; Head or Crown of the Apostles; the First in the Church; that firm Foundation; the Great Apostle;, the First of the disciples; Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church; the church . . . over this he sets Peter as shepherd.

That’s an awful lot of material to ignore, in order to pretend that St. Peter wasn’t the leader of the earliest Church; the first pope, if you will.

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ 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.

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 InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: see book and purchase information for this title of mine from 2012.

Summary: Protestant apologist Mike Winger says that Matthew 16 & John 21 give no indication of the papacy whatsoever. I exegete them & cite Church fathers’ interpretation.

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives