"You Alone Are The Holy One"

"The work of the Redeemer is a perfect work: nothing can be added to it, and nothing must be taken away from it. It is everlasting in its duration and efficacy; upon this the eye of faith should be invariably fixed, and from thence comfort and support in every state is to be drawn. Christ's blood is a constant propitiation, his righteousness is a perfect covering; to these reader, have daily recourse for cleansing and recommendation before God; by these you may silence all the accusations of Satan, all the clamours of conscience, all the threatenings of the law; for in Christ the believer is complete, and here may he safely rest in his dullest and heaviest moments." - Carl Heinrich von Bogatzky

Excerpts of The Delicious Destruction of Thomism by Paul Ricoeur

""repentance" belongs to the same thematic universe as trnsgression and merit, and it is no accident that it was precisely Judaism that laid emphasis on this concept. For "repentance" signifies that "return" to God, freely chosen, is always open to man; and the example of great and impious men who have "returned" to the Eternal attests that it is always possible for a man to "change his way." This emphasis on repentance is in conformity with the intepretation of "evil inclination" as occasion of sin and not as radical evil. The ethical universe of Pharisaism is already that of Pelagius: no great contrasts, as in Paul, Augustine, and Luther, between radical evil and radical deliverance, but a slow and progressive process of salvation, in which "pardon" is not lacking to "repentance," grace to the good will." - Paul Ricoeur "The Symbolism of Evil" (131)

"justice, although it is extrinsic to a man as far as its origin is concerned, has become something that dwells within him, as far as its operation is concerned; the "future" justice is already imputed to the man who believes; and so the man who is "declared" just is "made" just, really and vitally. Thus there is no ground for opposing the forensic and eschatological sense of justice to its immanent and present sense: for Paul the first is the cause of the second, but the second is the full manifestation of the first; the paradox is that the acme of outwardness is the acme of inwardness, of that inwardness that Paul calls new creature, or liberty. Liberty, considered from the point of view of last things, is not the power of hesitating and choosing between contraries, nor is it effort, good will, responsibility. For St. Paul, as for Hegel, it is being at home with oneself, in the whole, in the recapitulation of Christ." - Paul Ricoeur "The Symbolism of Evil" (148)

"Such is the symbol in the light of which the final experience of fault is perceived as something in the past that one has got beyond. It is because "justification" is the present which dominates the backward look on sin, that the supreme sin consists, in the last resort, in the vain attempt to justify oneself... Justification by faith, then, is what makes manifest the failure of justification by the law, and the failure of the justice of works is what reveals the unity of the entire domain of sin." - Paul Ricoeur "The Symbolism of Evil" (148)

"evil is not nothing; it is not a simple lack, a simple absence of order; it is the power of darkness; it is posited; in this sense it is something to be "taken way": "I am the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world," says the interior Master. Hence, every reduction of evil to a simple lack of being remains outside the symbolism of defilement, which is complete only when defilement has become guilt." - Paul Ricoeur "The Symbolism of Evil" (155)

Peter Kreeft's Thoughts on Justification

"The gift of God's love is ours for the taking. I am a Roman Catholic. But the most liberating idea I have ever heard I first learned from Martin Luther. Pope John Paul II told the German Lutheran bishops that Luther was profoundly right about this idea. He said that Catholic teaching affirms it just as strongly and that there was no contradiction between Protestant and Catholic theology on this terribly important point, which was the central issue of the Protestant Reformation. I speak, of course, about "justification by faith" and its consequence, which Luther called "Christian liberty" or "the liberty of a Christian" in his little gem of an essay by that name.

Let us be careful to approach the point in the right way. I think most misunderstandings begin at this very first step. Let's begin with a solid certainty: God is love. God is a lover, not a manager, businessman, accountant, owner, or puppet-master. What He wants from us first of all is not a technically correct performance but our heart. Protestants and Catholics alike need to relearn or reemphasize that simple, liberating truth... it liberated me just as it had the Catholic Augustinian monk Luther 450 years earlier. The crucial sentence for me was: "We may think God wants actions of a certain kind, but God wants people of a certain sort." (Mere Christianity)

The point is amazingly simple, which is why so many of us just don't get it. Heaven is free because love is free. It is ours for the taking. The taking is faith. "If you believe, you will be saved." It is really that simple. If I offer you a gift, you have it if and only if you have the faith to take it.

The primacy of faith does not discount or denigrate works but liberates them. Our good works can now also be free - free from the worry and slavery and performance anxiety of having to buy Heaven with them. Our good works can now flow from genuine love of neighbor, not fear of Hell. Nobody wants to be loved merely as a means to build up the lover's merit pile. That attempt is ridiculous logically as well as psychologically. How much does Heaven cost? A thousand good works? Would 999 not do, then? The very question shows its own absurdity. That absurdity comes from forgetting that God is love.

...

The whole point of justification by faith is God's scandalous, crazy, and wonderful gift of love." - Peter Kreeft "The God Who Loves You" p. 23-25

Not exactly an analytical take on the issue, but a good read nonetheless.

The Roman Catholic condemnations seem to be on the issue of faith being the sole basis of our justification. This leaves works at least some spot for our trust and assurance of salvation. BUT what Kreeft and others have done, for the sake of sanity, is really said that faith plus the habitus or innate regenerated inclination towards love are the ground of our justification. So as long as you can say 'I love God' and in some way whatsoever mean it, you can have a grounding in your faith, because it is faith formed by love. Thus the anathemas of Trent are just barely dodged, and one can be a Catholic of the Pascalian/Jansenist flavour and remain orthodox.

According to J.V. Fesko, this also has a similitude to some outliers in the Reformed Tradition, such as Jonathon Edwards, Albert Ritschl, and others in the early 20th century who emphasized mystical union and the Fatherly judgments of God / Congruent merit, rather than the juridicial / imputation doctrines. Or in other words, if you heap up the Congruent merit, and believe that every time God judges a believers work he is polishing the spots from it (to use Calvin's analogy), and you believe that he imputes perfection to the person's infused faith, hope and love, THEN you can have some sort of assurance. But again, this is just barely dodging Trent, and probably outside the mainstream of Roman Catholic theology.

Converts: Philosophy, Liberalism, and Justification

I was reading an article on more people who converted from Protestantism to Catholicism: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_17_123/ai_n16776668/

The interesting thing that I'm starting to notice about all the conversions to Catholicism is that they're usually based on two things:
-philosophy
-liberalism

In general, people tell the tale of how on the road to persecute more of God's faithful, a blinding light shone and Lo! Aristotle stood before them saying 'why do you persecute me!'. And then they have a conversion to Thomism. Certainly that's where alot of people have gone to hide from postmodernism, and continue to 'give medieval answers to contemporary questions' (as one Church historian described Trent). This is at least a good reason to convert, philosophy is important, and Catholicism offers the best philosophical system I've seen in a long time. So I don't mind this option, as it's kind of why I converted (the philosophical argument about the canon and infalliblity of the church), although it has nothing to do with Christ and God whose ways are above our ways, and who calls us to be 'fools for Christ'.

The second of course is that their church had 'suddenly' grown liberal, and that because our Roman Catechism and Pope Benedict XVI are conservative, that means our Church must likewise be conservative. I think this is a bad reason, as you will find almost immediately, just as many liberals in Catholicism as in the Episcopal Church or the ELCA. The only difference between Catholic and Protestant liberals - and it's a big difference to be sure - is that the Catholic liberals are just biding their time, slowly undermining things, destroying Catechesis and the ministry of the Word with Historical criticism. In Protestantism they do the same thing, except they're open about it, and declare themselves (which really only makes them easier to avoid, but also means they are better organized).

A final observation is that I've never heard of a convert from Classical Protestantism say that they were overwhelmed by the Catholic doctrine of justification and synergistic soteriology (Scott Hahn doesn't count as he was a FV/NPP/Neonomian). Interestingly enough, in every account, justification is either stated as not mattering anymore, or the ludicrous claim is made that because of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, the Reformation is over. In NO way did the JDDJ solve any Reformation issue, but it did mark the Lutherans' willingness to sell their heritage and doctrine in order to fulfill some high-minded ecumenical pipe-dream.

Anyway. I just think it's funny that no biblical exegetes and Classical Protestants are converting to Catholicism, but certainly, alot of intellectuals shopping for moral philosophy and epistemological certainty arrive there. Similarly, Evangelicals who never understood Confessional Protestantism in the first place and likewise threw away their birth right like Esau, without knowledge of what they were doing end up here.

In the end, perhaps Cardinal Avery Dulles was right when he noted that Catholics don't primarily care about Justification, and prefer discussing the sacramentology and the liturgy, to the issue, let alone worry about it. This seems to be the real conversion these Protestants had, no longer carrying about that doctrine which their spiritual ancestors once called "the article on which the church stands or falls".

(Those are just my observations as a Roman Catholic, looking back on)

Remaining Reformed-Roman Catholic Fights

So as I was examining the premises of both systems, I noticed that the Roman Catholic system is primarily based on an appeal to history and traditions as well as biblical arguments. It cannot argue on the basis of the bible alone, in the same way Reformed Theology cannot argue on the basis of tradition alone.

BUT the only way either group can argue, is by crossing over to the other's territory. So the only way Reformed Protestants will be able to grab Roman Catholic attention is by citing St. Augustine's doctrine on predestination perhaps, or the Council of Orange. Likewise, the only way Roman Catholics will ever get Reformed folks attention is by arguing about things like Federal Vision hermeneutics, Scott Hahn's arguments from scripture, and perhaps old issues like the biblical case for infusion rather than imputation.

I was making a list of prospective fights that could occur and this is what I've got so far (let me know if I'm missing a good one):

-supremacy of love / not sola fide / theological virtues
-obedience of faith / transformational righteousness/ infusion
-loss of justification/salvation?
-baptism

Two Puzzling Patristic Quotes

Every time I read the fathers I always try to see if they are teaching Catholic or Protestant doctrine. At the end of the day, the two main questions I think of the Reformation are: how serious is Original Sin/how free is Free Will, and the issue of Imputation. I like to think that I am still open to Protestantism if anyone can ever make the argument properly (though I wouldn't go beyond Canterbury, I've been spoiled with the beauties of High Church Christianity). Anyway, here are the quotes I found.

While reading patristic commentary on Romans for my Catholic bible study, I found this phrase on Romans 1:17: "he adds also righteousness; and righteousness, not thine own, but that of God; hinting also the abundance of it and the facility. For you do not achieve it by toilings and labors, but you receive it by a gift from above, contributing one thing only from your own store, "believing." Then since
his statement did not seem credible, if the adulterer and effeminate person, and robber of graves, and magician, is not only to be suddenly freed from punishment but to become just, and just too with the highest righteousness; he confirms his assertion from the Old Testament." - St. John Chrysostom (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PNI11-6.TXT)

He seems to be teaching Imputation at the beginning, but later he says the person becomes righteous, which both Catholics and Protestants agree on, but it's that old question: are we judged on Christ's imputed righteousness or the righteousness which he makes our own in us through the Spirit? So depending on how you use this quote it could be manipulated both ways.

It's odd as some Lutherans / Reformers I'd heard thought Chrysostom was semi-pelagian.

Weirder than Chrysostom possibly teaching imputation is the next quote from Augustine teaching that for mature Christians scripture isn't even necessary:

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/02/augustine-he-who-is-mature-in-faith-no-longer-needs-scripture/

This is where the Reformed will yell at me for reading the Church Fathers because they're all abominable for their manifest popery. The problem seems to be that I find Catholicism and Protestantism both to have biblical arguments, so it becomes then an issue of Tradition. So far I've only seen Anglicans touch patrology. In Newman's Apologia that I'm reading slowly, he has some strong patristic arguments for Anglo-Catholicism, and I'm waiting for him to prove them wrong.

Anyway, today I was at a faith fair with a really cool Lutheran trained, Anglo-Catholic priest and we had fun. I have great hope for Rome and Canterbury, so many good people in both.

Sanctus Augustinus Canterburae Ora Pro Nobis.
(I'm assuming Canterbury is a 1st conj. Fem. noun)

St. Augustine Against The "Unintelligence" (his word not mine) of Faith Alone

"Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: “We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law,” have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed “a vessel of election” by the apostle, who, after declaring that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision,” adds at once, “But faith working through love” … Therefore they possess not the faith by which the just man lives – the faith which works by love in such wise, that God recompenses it according to its works with eternal life … And the apostle himself, after saying, “By grace ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;” saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them; and again, the possibility of men’s boasting of their good works, as if they were of themselves capable of performing them. To meet, therefore, these opinions on both sides, he immediately added, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” … It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God … Grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God “shall reward every man according to his works.”" - St. Augustine "On Grace and Free Will" (Ch. 18-20)

For a good blog regarding this see: http://nealjudisch.blogspot.com/2009/01/colson-on-benedict-on-luther-why.html

If St. Augustine Was Wrong...

This is my Opinion on the matter not a scholarly argument etc. Just bear that in mind when you comment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Catholic patristic scholars since the 1560s have been showing that the Council of Trent's doctrine of justification is the same doctrine of justification held by St. Augustine of Hippo.

"the righteousness of God,— not that whereby He is Himself righteous, but that with which He endows man when He justifies the ungodly." - St. Augustine "On the Spirit and the Letter" Chapter 15

is the constant definition used. Now some folks like Alister McGrath say that poor Augustine didn't have Erasmus' Greek Manuscript (which had mistranslations of it's own) and that iustificare isn't the same as logozomai etc. Basically to short it to the point of triviality: Augustine was wrong, Luther was right. (Ironically another member of McGrath's church has argued that both Augustine and Luther are wrong (N.T. Wright), but there's the "perspicuity of scripture" for you)

But anyone who has read the wikipedia article on Augustine could tell you if Augustine was wrong, pardon my Anglo-Saxon but... Western Christianity is fucked, God is dead, etc...

If the Church which labelled itself as Augustinian for over a millenia was wrong about Original Sin, Predestination, Salvation, Pelagianism, Donatism, etc. Then God's Spirit is so impotent at leading the Church that there's no point in even believing.

That's my opinion. And if you think the Church was wrong about salvation for 1200 years then you might as well just become an Anabaptist and make it 1500 years, or a Mormon and make it 1800 years. Heck why not start your own church and just believe EVERYONE was wrong and it's actually justification by extrinsic interpretative-danced righteousness.

Finally: to Protestants, please give up the title Augustinian if you're just going to say he was wrong about salvation, you can't just pick and choose, even Luther said later in life that reading the bible through the interpretation of Augustine was like pouring milk through a bag of coal. So keep the title and accept infused righteousness, or give it up and keep imputed righteousness...or just remain keep your illogical idea that Augustine somehow taught what Luther taught even though he openly repudiated your doctrines.

I'm gonna regret posting this as all the Reformed will start attacking me like a Jew in the Gaza strip....and if any Jews read this I'm gonna regret posting this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another Good Explanation of Catholic Soteriology, Straight From Rome

"The concept of "righteousness of God" was explained in the Letter to Titus: "But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy" (Titus 3:4-5). Saying "The righteousness of God appeared," is the same as saying: The goodness of God, his love and his mercy appeared. It was not man who, all of a sudden, changed life and tradition and put himself to the task of doing good; the novelty is that God acted, he was the first to extend his hand out to sinful man, and his action fulfilled time.

Here is the novelty that distinguishes the Christian religion from any other. Any other religion draws out for man a path to salvation by means of practical observations and intellectual speculations, promising him, as a final prize, salvation and illumination, but leaving him substantially alone in achieving the task. Christianity does not begin with what man must do to save himself, but rather with what God has done to save him. The order is reversed.

It is true that to love God with all your heart is "the first and greatest of the commandments," but the commandments are not primary, they are secondary. Before the order of commandments comes the order of gift and of grace. Christianity is the religion of grace! If this is not taken into consideration in interreligious dialogue, the dialogue would be able to do no more than generate confusion and doubts in the hearts of many Christians.

...

Everything, then, depends on faith. But we know that there are different types of faith: There is the faith-acquiescence of the intellect, the faith-confidence, the faith-stability, as Isaiah calls it (7:9). What type of faith is addressed when talking about justification "by faith?" It addresses a special type of faith: the faith-appropriation. It does not tire me to cite in this respect a text of St. Bernard:

"But as for me, whatever is lacking in my own resources I appropriate for myself from the heart of the Lord, which overflows with mercy. My merit therefore is the mercy of the Lord. Surely I am not devoid of merit so long as he is not of mercy. And if the Lord abounds in mercy, I too must abound in merits (Psalm 119:156). But would this be my own righteousness? Lord, I will be mindful of your righteousness only. For that is also mine, since God has made you my righteousness." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon on the Song of Songs)"

- Fr. Cantalamessa (http://www.zenit.org/article-14845?l=english)

more of my endless musings on justification...

"Wherefore faith itself, even when it does not work by charity [Gal 5:6], is in itself a gift of God, and the act of faith is a work pertaining to salvation, by which man yields voluntary obedience to God Himself, by assenting to and cooperating with His grace, which he is able to resist (can. v)."

(Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, ch. III, "Of Faith")

I found this on Dave Armstrong's blog, and I thought it was interesting to finally hear the magesterium talk about faith without works. To me Catholicism has a vast deal of writing about faith with works/working in love, and about Baptism, Penance, and the necessity of the sacraments. If I could have my 'dream encyclical' it would be on the issue of faith without works, repentence without the desire for confession, mortal sin, and imperfect contrition. Those are the grey areas I'm constantly asked about by new or returning Catholics.

Psychologically, I think it's impossible to be sane and hold the view that 6 days out of 7 you're going to Hell, so I've just decided that I have "special revelation" (Isn't scripture special revelation anyway?) that the fact that I have faith in Christ and that I will go to confession eventually is enough for God (possibly even more than enough). For if Catholics are so desperate about the idea that he "wills that all might be saved" and that 'all that is necessary is an act of the will' for salvation, then my will for salvation apart from any present sacrament, should be sufficient source for hope in salvation. (that is until someone quotes a mean-spirited council from the middle ages that says the exact opposite).

Augustinian Soteriology

In an attempt to gain an Augustinian understanding of soteriology I'm planning on reading "On the Spirit and the Letter" ...but not in Latin. I just started skimming already this morning and found two passages interesting and almost contradictory:

"What, however, is the spirit of this world, but the spirit of pride? ... they too are deceived, who, while ignorant of the righteousness of God, and wishing to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to God's righteousness...we conclude that a man is not justified by the precepts of a holy life, but by faith in Jesus Christ—in a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith; not by the letter, but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but by free grace." - Chapter 22, "On the Spirit and the Letter"

Now this is probably quoted in the Formulas of Concord or something and sounds REALLY Lutheran, but look at the next quote:

"Now He that has wrought us for the self-same thing is God, who also has given unto us the earnest of the Spirit; 2 Corinthians 5:5 and after a little he thus briefly draws the conclusion of the matter: That we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Corinthians 5:21 This is not the righteousness whereby God is Himself righteous, but that whereby we are made righteous by Him." - Chapter 31 "On the Letter and the Spirit, St. Augustine of Hippo

That is a passage the Council of Trent quotes on Justification against the Lutheran doctrine of Imputed Righteousness.

So what the Hell is St. Augustine trying to say?! I'm going to try to figure out... and if he teaches Luther's view of Justification I'll leave the Roman church, but for some strange reason, I don't think he's going to. Knowing my luck, he'll teach some weird hybrid of both that will leave me forever guessing.

The next book I'll have to read after this is Henri De Lubac's "Augustinianism and Modern Theology" where he critiques both Jansenism and (I think) St. Thomas Aquinas doctrines that seem to be "pure nature" without grace.

Mercy and Merits

The understanding I have of merit in Catholic teaching I've discovered so far is this:

1. The works are meritous because they are works of Christ through us (The body of Christ) just as his work on the cross is the meritorious cause of our salvation (Council of Trent)

2. The works are meritous because of the overwhelming mercy of God, in that as a loving father he judges them valuable despite their littleness.

"My merit comes from his mercy; for I do not lack merit so long as he does not lack pity. And if the Lord's mercies are many, then I am rich in merits. For even if I am aware of many sins, what does it matter? Where sin abounded grace has overflowed. And if the Lord's mercies are from all ages for ever, I too will sing of the mercies of the Lord for ever. Will I not sing of my own righteousness? No, Lord, I shall be mindful only of your justice. Yet that too is my own; for God has made you my righteousness." - St. Bernard of Clairvaux

The ending "you my righteousness" will probably spark claims of proto-protestantism but the Catholic Encyclopedia reminds us: "It is a defined article of the Catholic Faith that man before, in, and after justification derives his whole capability of meriting and satisfying, as well as his actual merits and satisfactions, solely from the infinite treasure of merits which Christ gained for us on the Cross (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. xvi; Sess. XIV, cap. viii)."

Likewise in Pope John XXIII's writings he says: "The sense of my own littleness and nothingness has always been my good companion, keeping me humble and calm, and making me employ myself to the best of my ability in a constant exercise of obedience and charity for souls and for the interests of the Kingdom of Jesus, my Lord and my all. To Him be all glory; for me and for my merit. His mercy. This alone is enough for me."

St. Thomas More in his dialogue on comfort also says:

"Like as we grant them (Protestants) that no good work of man is rewardable in heaven of his own nature, but through the goodness of God, that list to set so high a price upon so poor a thing, and that this price God setteth through Christ's passion, and for that also they be his own works with us (for good works to God-ward worketh no man, without God work in him); and as we grant them also that no man may be proud of his works for his own imperfect working; and for that in all that man may do he can do no good, but is a servant unprofitable and doth but his bare duty..." [St. Thomas More, A DIALOGUE OF COMFORT, I, 12]

The Divide:

Some reading might think, well isn't this pretty much the same as Protestantism? Not really, it is similar to Wesleyanism but traditional Protestant Theology denies the ability of man to cooperate in any meritous way with God's grace. This is the Protestant idea known as Monergism (God does everything we do nothing), the Catholic idea is Synergism (God does everything we assent to it or cooperate with it). Thus there is a divide.

Conclusion:

So while we can really merit because of what Christ has done on the Cross and is doing in our lives, let us not forget to trust humbly in his mercy rather than in our efforts. His mercies make our merits.

JUSTIFICATION & SANCTIFICATION - REFORMED VERSUS CATHOLIC VIEW w/ special regard to 1 Cor 6

I'm tired of constantly fighting about this issue so I'm just going to post what I *THINK* are the differences between our 2 traditions.

REFORMED:

God predestines from eternity past the elect and the reprobate. All men are trapped in total depravity unable to commit any good act without the irresistible grace of God. By this irresistible grace the elect have faith alone in Christ alone and Christ's perfect active obedience and righteousness is imputed to their souls. The faithful then know they are God's elect and are eternally secure (unless they fall away and the show that they weren't eternally secure - this is what I don't understand) This is justification. THEN Sanctification is the process where their actual lives/souls become righteous and holy, they turn from sin and towards God. BUT this process is not what God considers when evaluating their holiness so that in the eyes of God the thief on the Cross and St. Paul are equally righteous. Nevertheless the believer does become holy and this intrinsic personal holiness will be perfected instantly at death when all sin is killed with the body and in the instant process of glorification when the soul reaches heaven. But again, this intrinsic holiness is not what matters in terms of salvation, only Christ's extrinsic righteousness.

CATHOLIC:

God predestines the elect to receive the grace sufficient for salvation. They are (ordinarily) baptized and washed of their original sin and receive the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and charity which works with the grace of baptism to make them holy. The elect are given grace which they cooperate with and become more just and holy. On the basis of their faith they are declared just by God and made just intrinsically by being in a state of grace and by receiving the sacraments they receive more grace. If and when they fall into wilful grave sin (mortal sin) or apostasy the grace at work in their souls making them both holy and just is killed, they are no longer in a state of grace. But this grace can sacramentally be regained through Confession/Reconcilliation. To die in a state of grace means that God will put the soul (if necessary) through purgatory where they will be perfected in holiness. This is justification and/or sanctification. On judgment day they will be judged righteous based on the intrinsic righteousness God has wrought within their souls.

REGARDING 1 CORINTHIANS 6:11
"...But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God"

REFORMED Exegesis:
In the moment of new birth and justification there is in some sense a real sanctification that occurs in the believer.

CATHOLIC Exegesis:
Paul is here showing that being made holy and being made just are not two separated processes but the same indivisible process. So the verse is a useful prooftext to show not only the interchangabiity of the terms sanctification and justification, but also the way in which Catholic theology speaks of multiple justifications, or an increase of justification, or a regaining of justification.

REFORMED claim:
There is a "distinction" between justification and sanctification but not a division.

CATHOLIC response:
This is a division not a distinction because you believe sanctification is a superfluous process. The thief on the cross was justified and barely - if at all- sanctified, and St. Paul was justified and extremely sanctified, and the Reformed Tradition would have us believe that God views them identically in terms of righteousness and holiness.

____________________________________________________

Now. If I screwed this up significantly on the Reformed or Catholic side, please let me know.

St. Paul screwing up the Ordo Salutis again...

In Reformed theology justification is officially distinguished from sanctification. The charge is that Catholicism and the Council of Trent especially confuses these clearly divided steps in the 'Ordo Salutis' (order of salvation - Why are the Reformed using Latin anyway? that's what I want to know). But is this "distinction" biblical? I have had a 42 page email debate with one Presbyterian minister about this before so I don't feel like rehashing it all over again, but I want to just point out one of many examples where St. Paul would be - according the Reformed charge - screwing up the ordo salutis. I'll be using the NRSV.

"Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Short Quote By Newman- Interesting View On Justification

"...Christ in us is said to be the hope of glory. Christ then is our righteousness by dwelling in us by the Spirit: He justifies us by entering into us, He continues to justify us by remaining in us. This is really and truly our justification, not faith, not holiness, not (much less) a mere imputation; but through God’s mercy, the very presence of Christ." - Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman "Lectures on Justification"

These lectures on Justification by Newman have been criticized heavily by Alister McGrath, that it fails to understand both Trentine Catholicism and Lutheran Soteriology. It is imperative to note that at this time he was not trying to defend either position, but rather trying to find an Anglican "via media" between the two views. I believe this passage is almost identical to the teaching of Peter Lombard, a heretic the Church condemned for teaching that the Holy Spirit alone is necessary for salvation.

Still, heretical, heterodox, or orthodox, it still stands as a more unique view on justification.

Anglican Divine Kicks My Papal Ass

Anglicanism has always held a spot in my heart since the day almost 3 years ago I first did ministry in the Church of England (it was the first Church I went to in England and they had the audacity to name it after a saint! - I asked our driver if it was Catholic lol).

Anyway, tonight I read Richard Hooker's "Learned Discourse on Justification" and it blew my mind.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hooker/just.html

Maybe it was just your average Reformation thesis, but it was very significant to me. First of all, he's writing in the age of polemics in the 16th century, and even though he calls the "Church of Rome", "Babylon" and "Anti-Christ", he actually was quite ecumenical in arguing that many Roman Catholics could be saved and many could be saved without even hearing about the doctrine of justification by "faythe ownly" (faith only). He shows a perfect understanding of Trent (something I've not seen in another Reformer - though I haven't read many) and shows how they agree with them and that indeed they hold the foundation of all Christian faith, namely that salvation is through the blood of Jesus Christ alone. But he says they add things heretically. He even distinguishes from a more Lutheran reading of Rome as teaching what the Judaizers did (very perceptive), and says that while it is partially right, it is a false gospel and that this and the obligatory belief in transubstantiation are enough to merit separation from Rome.

I'm not saying I'm becoming Anglican (I'd like to hear Richard Hooker's thoughts on Today's Canterbury), but it certainly has given me alot to think about.

Here are some quotes I enjoyed:

"Our very virtues may be snares unto us. The enemy that waiteth for all occasions to work our ruin hath ever found it harder to overthrow a humble sinner than a proud saint. There is no man's case so dangerous as his, whom Satan hath persuaded that his own righteousness shall present him pure and blameless in the sight of God."

"we acknowledge a dutiful necessity of doing well, but the meritorious dignity of well doing we utterly renounce. We see how far we are from the perfect righteousness of the law. The little fruit which we have in holiness, it is, God knoweth, corrupt and unsound: we put no confidence at all in it, we challenge nothing in the world for it, we dare not call God to a reckoning, as if we had him in our debt-books. Our continual suit to him is, and must be, to bear with our infirmities, to pardon our offences."

"the scope of Christian doctrine is the comfort of them whose hearts are overcharged with the burden of sin; and had proved that the doctrine professed in the Church of Rome doth bereave men of comfort, both in their lives and at their deaths; the conclusion in the end whereunto we came was this: "The Church of Rome being in faith so corrupted as she is, and refusing to be reformed as she doth, we are to sever ourselves from her. The example of our fathers may not retain us in communion and fellowship with that church, under hope that we, so continuing, might be saved as well as they. God, I doubt not, was merciful to save thousands of them, though they lived in popish superstitions, inasmuch as they sinned ignorantly; but the truth is now laid open before our eyes." The former part of this last sentence, namely, these words. "I doubt not but God was merciful to save thousands of our fathers living In poplsh superstitions inasmuch as they sinned ignorantly" -- this sentence I beseech you to mark, and to sift it with the strict severity of austere judgment, that if it be found as gold it may stand, suitable to the precious foundation whereupon it was then laid; for I protest that if it be hay or stubble mine own hand shall set fire to it. [Cf 1 Cor 3:11ff] Two questions have risen by occasion of the speech before alleged: the one, whether our fathers, infected with popish errors and superstitions, might be saved; the other, whether their ignorance be a reasonable inducement to make us think that they might. We are therefore to examine first what possibility, and then what probability, there is that God might be merciful unto so many of our fathers."


"heresy is heretically maintained by such as obstinately hold it after wholesome admonition. Of the last sort, as also of the next before, I make no doubt but that their condemnation, without actual repentance, is inevitable."

"What way is there for sinners to escape the judgment of God but only by appealing unto the seat of his saving mercy?"

"if any of them did die so persuaded, whether before or after they were told of their error, their case is dreadful, there is no way with them but one, death and condemnation"

"we are justified by faith alone, and yet hold truly that without good works we are not justified"

"(Describing a Roman Catholic dieing) when the hour of death approacheth, when they secretly hear themselves summoned forthwith to appear and stand at the bar of that Judge whose brightness causeth the eyes of angels themselves to dazzle, all those idle imaginations do then begin to hide their faces. To name merits then is to lay their souls upon the rack; the memory of their own deeds is loathsome unto them; they forsake all things wherein they have put any trust and confidence: no staff to lean upon, no ease, no rest, no comfort then, but only in Christ Jesus."

"I grant that we are apt, prone, and ready to forsake God; but is God as ready to forsake us? Our minds are changeable; is his so likewise? Whom God hath justified hath not Christ assured that it is his Father's will to give them a kingdom?"

"They acknowledged Christ to be their only and their perfect Saviour, but saw not how repugnant their believing the necessity of Mosaical ceremonies was to their faith in Jesus Christ"

"Then what is the fault of the Church of Rome? Not that she requireth works at their hands that will be saved, but that she attributeth unto works a power of satisfying God for sin, and a virtue to merit both grace here and in heaven glory. That this overthroweth the foundation of faith I grant willingly; that it is a direct denial thereof I utterly deny."

"Canst thou think thyself a bishop when thou hast denied all those things whereby thou didst obtain a bishoply calling?" [John Cassian, DE INCARNATIONE DOMINI CONTRA NESTORIUM, 6:17f]

"I will not be afraid to say unto a cardinal or to a pope in this plight, "Be of good comfort, we have to do with a merciful God, ready to make the best of that little which we hold well, and not with a captious sophister who gathereth the worst out of everything wherein we err.""

"I saw it convenient to utter that sentence which I did, to the end that all men might thereby understand how untruly we are said to condemn as many as have been before us otherwise persuaded than we ourselves are"

I see in his writing his firm conviction that the gospel is of Christ's merit and not our own, but also that Anglican spirit of forgiveness for others and his constant reaffirming that even if we hold on but by a thread with our faith to Christ, we are still in his mercy. Oh for me to only be born before Priestesses and Female Bishops, to be in the Church of John Donne, T.S. Eliot, and C.S. Lewis

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus on Judgment Day

I was thinking about Roman Catholics I really love today and I looked up Fr. Richard and found this great quote. It summarizes exactly how I feel, I think I'm going to print it off and put it in my wallet. He was also born a Canadian, even better, an Ontarian :). Requiem in Terra Pax, Father Richard



“When I come before the judgment throne, I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I will not plead any work that I have done, although I will thank God that he has enabled me to do some good. I will plead no merits other than the merits of Christ, knowing that the merits of Mary and the saints are all from him; and for their company, their example, and their prayers throughout my earthly life I will give everlasting thanks. I will not plead that I had faith, for sometimes I was unsure of my faith, and in any event that would be to turn faith into a meritorious work of my won. I will not plead that I held the correct understanding of “justification by faith alone,” although I will thank God that he led me to know ever more fully the great truth that much misunderstood formulation was intended to protect. Whatever little growth in holiness I have experienced, whatever strength I have received from the company of the saints, whatever understanding I have attained of God and his ways - these and all other gifts received I will bring gratefully to the throne. But in seeking entry to that heavenly kingdom, I will…look to Christ and Christ alone.” - Father Richard John Neuhaus "Death on a Friday"

My Strange Theory/Heresy of Justification From the Psalms

I realized as I read Lewis' reflections on the Psalms today that I could never stand before Holy God and be judged righteous. "Enter not into judgement with Thy servant, for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified." (Psalm 143:2).

My theology therefore in trying to dodge around Trent which merely says anathema to those who believe justification comes from the SOLE imputation of Christ's righteousness. So I tend to theorize and teach this version (probably heretical) of justification, probably the only justification theology based almost solely on the Psalms.

So we already have Psalm 143 saying that no living person will be deemed righteous by himself (or herself). Then in Psalm 32 "Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Happy are those to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity". So now it is the idea that the sin of the individual is washed away in Baptism and by faith and repentance actual sin is imputed to Christ on the cross (somehow it time travels?). So then we have an individual who has no sin on their soul, they are forgiven (Ps 51:1). Then we have God judging a person only on their merits which he has given them by grace and worked through them (Phil 2:13).

I also tend to assume that the only mortal sin is that of not having faith. I think this places me somewhere between Catholicism and Arminianism.

All this is my personal theology - officially I've submitted to that of the Roman Catholic Church

But on judgment day I think the only words I will be able to get out are those of David:
"according to your abundant mercy
blot out my transgressions." - Ps 51

I've just read a funny thing on the Catholic Encyclopedia under Justification it says:
"We have seen that Protestants claim the following three qualities for justification: certainty, equality, the impossibility of ever losing it. Diametrically opposed to these qualities are those defended by the Council of Trent (sess. VI, cap. 9-11): uncertainty (incertitudo), inequality (inaequalitas), amissibility (ammisibilitas)."

Why would anyone defend uncertainty, inequality, and amissibility. Like I know the whole 'they're true' or 'they're biblical' argument works, but just at a personal level, I want to know what kind of people think about the gospel and think of those concepts and thinks they're worthy of a fight to defend. Who loses sleep at night over the thought that some are content and certain in their trust of God's grace. It boggles my mind...

The Difficult Gospel - Issues with Catholicism (1)

I wrote a very cynical previous blog about Bible Verses the Catholic Church would re-write. I did this not because I think the Catholic Church is wrong in it's teaching, but simply out of frustration. Frustration because of what I call "the difficult gospel". The bible says we are saved by many things: Grace, Faith (eph 2:8-9), Christ (rom 3), Works (Mt 25, Jms 2), Repentance (Ps 51, Mk 1:15), Baptism (2 Pet 3, Jn 3:5, Acts 2, Mk 16), Predestination (Eph 1), Hope (Rom 8), Love (1 Cor 13) , etc. The bible is full of things you're saved by. The first problem is that Protestantism simplifies (incorrectly I still believe) into a single sentence, and it is always stuck in the back of my mind. The second problem is that this makes reading the bible as a Catholic a painstaking labor. You can't read in Romans 3 that we are "freely justified by his grace" without having to remember that those who don't cooperate with his grace and produce good works end up being thrown in the fire according to John 15. You can't read Eph 2:8-9 without reading James 2:24-28. This makes for difficult bible study as I've found with my Evangelical friends.

In the end after you've "explained away" all the conclusions of one verse with another verse, you feel like there's no point in reading the bible anymore. .... Maybe that's why so many Catholics don't read their bibles.

I've been dealing with the fear of damnation and the feelings of guilt that seem to be the birthright of all the faithful sons of Rome and it strikes me at how contrary this is to St. Paul's absolute trust in Christ as his saviour in Colossians and Romans. I want to live a life of faith with full trust in God's grace. I feel like I'm an Arminian but not a Catholic yet. I have no problem with saying that those who do not accept the gift of faith and cease to have faith in Christ are justly under God's wrath. Yet at the same time I find I hate the idea that those who fail to cooperate with God's grace by sinning gravely would be under the same condemnation. Maybe it's because I've always had faith, but always been crappy at works.

In any case, I was reminded by Trent that everything is by grace, and that accepting the gift of faith from God, is like accepting the gift of love/charity/works. Faith working in Love. That and the writings of Cardinal Newman and St. Augustine who both keep reminding me that God's desire is to save me, not to abandon me in my journey and that there is mercy for all who desire it. (thank God Trent said the graces of confessional absolution rest on those who desire them).

But these are the problems I'm still working out with Catholicism, I still drift dreamily back sometimes to Protestantism. Not a day goes by where I don't ask God for forgiveness if the Catholic Church is apostate, or for guidance on which interpretation of justification is correct.

Still to date, I have received no answer from God on whether Catholics or Protestants in general were correct, only slight leadings from the Spirit about certain individuals from each side (C.S. Lewis, St. Augustine, etc). Even though it is in blatant contradiction to Catholic teaching, I still would like to believe that the elect are God's children in every communion on the earth who love him. I only pray that I am one of them, I don't care about titles or labels. I only seek to love my Father in heaven and to trust in the mercy of his Son and my Saviour, Jesus Christ.

This website is becoming helpful to me as well: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/ - it's a bunch of Presbyterian Converts to Catholicism.

Merit In Laymen's Terms

Since I've entered the Catholic (or Apostate) Communion I've not posted alot on theology because I've realized how little I understand or know about Catholic theology. Most of my ideas are still Reformed or Evangelical and I feel like the only way to describe it is Chesterton's line in his book on Conversion and the Catholic Church where he says that when you walk into the Church you realize that it's much bigger on the inside, that it's gigantic. I had to face the fact that I might not actually ever fully comprehend my religion. Anyway, I figured since Merit is a topic I knew almost nothing about, I'd try to understand it.

Here are the sources I stole my info from:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/02/merit-clarification-of-catholic.html
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma9.php

Nothing I write is 'magesterial' or anything, I'm just a lay Catholic trying to understand this.

Catholic Teaching on Justification and Merit
Catholic Theology has always taught and always will teach what it has since the Augustine-Pelagian controversy, that man is freely justified by God's grace which is unmeritted and that without this grace it is impossible to do good works which either merit eternal rewards or one's salvation. Merit comes after the application of Justification (baptism in infants, faith and/or baptism in adults, priestly absolution for those in a state of mortal sin). But the tricky thing one must remember when studying Catholic theology is that they believe everything is by grace, but it's resistible grace (think Wesley and everyone Calvin was against) meaning that theoretically God could be beaming down grace to me in every decision I make, but I could still reject it 100 times before I accept it once. The thing to remember also is that much of Catholic theology does not constantly repeat the premiss that grace comes first and is unmeritted. It's kind of a given in Western Christendom.

Types of Merit
I'll use myself as an example. So for me, a recently absolved, baptized, and faithful Catholic who has definately committed venial sins this week, but is still in a state of grace, there are two kinds of merit I could achieve.

1) Congruent Merit
Congruent Merit would be like if I was really hungry and wanted all the perogies in the fridge but then presumably God gave me the grace to tell my cousin she could have some and her then consuming said perogies and thanking me. Now I've done a virtuous thing not out of obligation and not of absolutely pure motive, but because it was prompted by grace and was an act of Christian charity, presumably God would consider it meritous, pleasing, and if he is feeling merciful on judgment day, he will give me a gold star or remove a day from my millenia in Purgatory. Congruent merit isn't as certain, it's more just the hope that God will look on all the good things I did by his grace and because of his graciousness and mercy he will reward me.

2) Condign Merit
Condign Merit would be a much bigger thing. Imagine while my cousin was enjoying the perogies a robber burst in and was going to kill my cousin, and I suddenly was zapped by God's grace and was filled with absolute compassion and sacrificial love and I died protecting my cousin from this evil murderous robber. That would be an act that kind of earns a real reward from God. To use a biblical example, St. James states that those who persevere under temptation will recieve from God a crown of life, or in Revelation when the Martyrs are given crowns, etc.

This is my basic understanding.