Friday, February 28, 2014

Crucifix or Plain Cross?

Even the difference between a crucifix and a plain cross can, incredibly, become a source of division among Christians. Extreme anti-Catholics like to say a crucifix “keeps Jesus on the cross forever,” a sign that his death is really not complete because—according to them—Catholics crucify Christ over and over again at every Mass.

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Catholic sacramental theology knows this isn’t true. And while both a crucifix and a cross are worthy symbols to direct the attention of a Christian to the Savior, a crucifix is a richer symbol. I would like to simply share my own perspective when I look at each, a perspective informed by the historical fact that Jesus Christ was not the only person to be crucified—but his crucifixion was unique among the many, many thousands of others who were killed by this procedure.

When I look at a plain cross with nobody depicted on it, I see an instrument of terrorism, torture and execution upon which many thousands of people were grotesquely slaughtered at the hands of the Roman government (as well as others) over a period of about a thousand years. Looking at a plain cross I see an instrument devised by cold-hearted human beings to deliberately inflict terror and unspeakable cruelty upon other human beings, horrifying cruelty unimaginable in the civilized mind. I see the evil of those that conceived such a device, and the inhumanity of those who were involved in nailing fellow-human beings to their death.

Looking at only the instrument minus a victim (for these things had thousands of victims), numerous adjectives come to mind: horrendous, loathsome, abominable, gruesome, appalling, heinous, shameful, revolting, sickening.

When I look at a crucifix depicting Jesus on one of these crosses, I see only one of the many thousands of executions that took place through crucifixion—one that was extraordinarily unique. Here God’s own Son willingly succumbed to this humiliating and awful torture out of total, selfless love for sinners. In this unique crucifixion Jesus Christ took on humanity’s most vile enemy and conquered it for all time. This was a unique crucifixion, vastly different from all the others taking place on this same instrument, and some adjectives that come to mind are: wonderful, glorious, loving, devoted, generous, passionate, wondrous, awesome, heroic, magnificent, triumphant, sacred.

On a crucifix I see an image of the total, self-sacrificing and self-giving love and mercy of the God who laid down his life for us; a plain cross suggests that potential, a crucifix displays it. While both are valid and worthy symbols of Jesus Christ, a crucifix is a much more powerful and accurate reminder of who he is and what he did for us.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Why Pray for the Dead, and Why Ask Them to Pray for Us?

Why would anyone pray for the dead? And why would we try to ask people in Heaven to pray for us? Before we can address these questions we first need to understand the answers to two others: Why do we pray for anyone, especially a fellow believer, who is alive on earth with us? And why do we ask others on earth to pray for us?

A simple answer might be that the Bible tells us to in a number of places, perhaps most notably Ephesians 6:18-19, in which Paul tells the Ephesians they should be “praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saintsand for me, that utterance may be given to me.”

But how does this make any sense in light of the clear Biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is our only Mediator?

I can pray to Jesus directly; I don’t need anybody else to do that for me. If you agree with that, then why would I ask anyone else to pray for me? And why would I pray for anyone else when they can also pray directly without me? And why would Paul, of all people, ask for prayers—he had a direct supernatural encounter with Jesus, a clear, unobstructed path.

It would seem that anyone who puts forth this reasoning to argue that we have no business asking Mary or other saints in Heaven to pray for us had better stop asking anyone on earth to pray for them as well. You have only one Mediator between you and God, so you’d better stop asking your pastor or your neighbor or your brother to pray for you.

And you’d better stop praying for other people, stop trying to be another mediator, because by doing so you’re trying to usurp the role of Christ.

Does that sound silly? Of course it does—especially to someone who understands the real reason we pray for others and ask their prayers for us.

We are not mediators for each other, that’s Jesus’ unique role. Jesus is the one Mediator between God and all of humanity. And we really don’t need anybody else to intercede for us, because we can all pray directly ourselves. Jesus taught this clearly in Matthew 6:6 where he says:

“When you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.”

But what we do need is an intimate connection to the other members of the Body of Christ to which we are all joined as one. We cannot live as individual members of the Body without a powerful connection to each other. (1 Corinthians 12)

Prayer is that connection, for when we pray for each other we enter intimately into each other’s spiritual life—not just physical, emotional and mental life, but spiritual life, in which we are ultimately one Body. Prayer is the blood that circulates throughout the entire Body of Christ, much like the blood in my physical body establishes a bond between my right hand and my left ankle, for the same blood flows through both. Our prayer for each other draws us into a closer bond with each other and with Jesus the true Mediator.

So we pray for others, and we ask them to pray for us, not because we need their mediation or even intercession for God to hear us (as if God won’t listen to me unless someone more influential speaks on my behalf), but so that we can be a stronger, complete Body.

And if it is true that the Body of Christ is one, not divided, then it is true that we are part of the same Body as all the other members, including those who have preceded us in death. So we continue to pray for them, and they pray for us, because we are still one Body in Christ and need to maintain that connection through prayer, the life blood of the Body.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

What Pope Francis Really Said About Homosexuality

It’s been seven months since Pope Francis made his famous “who am I to judge” remark in answer to a question about a “gay lobby” in the Curia, and its waves continue to wash ashore—bringing both cleansing waters and dead fish. To those who understand Catholic teaching on homosexuality it’s a refreshing reminder of the love Jesus commands us to have for all people. For those who don’t—and particularly those who don’t want to—it’s misconstrued as a blessing on homosexual activity.

A notable case of the latter occurred in November when the Illinois legislature passed a bill making the state the sixteenth in the nation to legalize “homosexual marriage.” Several Catholic lawmakers who were initially undecided about the bill cited Pope Francis’ remarks as the deciding factor that led them to vote in favor. Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia told the Chicago Tribune: “As a Catholic follower of Jesus and the pope, Pope Francis, I am clear that our Catholic religious doctrine has at its core love, compassion and justice for all people.” Catholic Speaker of the House Michael Madigan told the Tribune: “For those that just happen to be gay—living in a very harmonious, productive relationship but illegal—who am I to judge that they should be illegal?”

This despite the fact that Pope Francis and the Roman Catholic Church consider homosexual acts to be “intrinsically disordered,” are “contrary to the natural law,” and “under no circumstances can they be approved.” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2357)

So what did Pope Francis really say? Let’s take the radical approach of reading his entire quote in its context.

Pope Francis fielded questions from reporters aboard his airplane on the way back to Rome from World Youth Day activities in July. For nearly an hour and a half he took questions on any topic, refusing to answer none. His answers to the final two questions have drawn the most attention.

The first of these concerned claims that Msgr. Battista Ricca, whom Pope Francis had chosen to head the Institute for the Works of Religion (more commonly known as the Vatican Bank) had engaged in homosexual activity years ago. According to a transcript by Andrea Tornielli of Vatican Insider, this was the Pope’s answer:

“I have acted in accordance with Canon Law and ordered an investigation. None of the accusations against him have proved to be true. We haven’t found anything! It is often the case in the Church that people try to dig up sins committed during a person’s youth and then publish them. We are not talking about crimes or offenses such as child abuse which is a whole different matter, we are talking about sins. If a lay person, a priest or a nun commits a sin and then repents of it and confesses, the Lord forgives and forgets. And we have no right not to forget, because then we risk the Lord not forgetting our own sins. I often think of St. Peter who committed the biggest sin of all, he denied Jesus. And yet he was appointed Pope. But I repeat, we have found no evidence against Msgr. Ricca.”

The final question concerned the Pope’s earlier confirmation of the presence of a “gay lobby” in the Curia. This was his response (emphasis added):

“There is so much written about the gay lobby. I haven’t met anyone in the Vatican who has ‘gay’ written on their identity cards. There is a distinction between being gay, being this way inclined and lobbying. Lobbies are not good. If a gay person is in eager search of God, who am I to judge them? The Catholic Church teaches that gay people should not be discriminated against; they should be made to feel welcome. Being gay is not the problem, lobbying is the problem and this goes for any type of lobby, business lobbies, political lobbies and Masonic lobbies.”

Pope Francis first of all made a clear distinction between merely having a same-sex attraction, which the Church acknowledges is beyond one’s control, and a “lobby,” which is an organized effort to pursue homosexual activity and agendas. Note the sentence I underlined, where he is clear that when he says “being gay” he is referring merely to having same-sex attraction, and “lobbying” as promoting homosexual activity. He clearly condemned the latter: “Lobbies are not good…. Being gay [simply having the attraction] is not the problem, lobbying [acting upon the attraction in various ways] is the problem.”

Regarding those he says he should not judge, it is a gay person (meaning one having same-sex attraction) who is “in eager search of God,” meaning they are trying to live according to the Gospel by, among other things, resisting the temptation to act on their unnatural sexual impulses.

In other words, Pope Francis said that he will not judge someone to be a member of a gay lobby simply because that person has a same-sex attraction. That would be stereotyping all persons with same-sex attraction as gay lobbyists, which would be unjust.

(Note also in his answer to the first question, about alleged homosexual activity by Msgr. Ricca, that he refers to such activity as “sin.” The issue was not whether or not Msgr. Ricca’s alleged homosexual activity was sin, but whether it actually occurred and, if it did, had he repented of this sin.)

Of course all of this is basic Catholic teaching, as spelled out plainly in The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” (#2358-2359)”

Reporting on the media frenzy these remarks caused last summer, Scott P. Richert made this astute observation:

“The most ridiculous part of this media frenzy is that Pope Francis’s remarks are no different than remarks that Pope Benedict himself made many times during his pontificate, remarks that simply reflect (as the Holy Father noted) the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Like the media circus in 2010 over Pope Benedict’s remarks on condoms, this sudden ‘controversy’ tells us more about the sexual obsessions of modern man—and the willingness of the media, both secular and Catholic, to play to those obsessions—than it does about Pope Francis.”

Monday, February 24, 2014

Infant Baptism: A Quiz


Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.” Luke 18:15-17

Here’s a list of questions for Evangelical Christians on the topic of infant baptism.

1. Do you believe that every child is conceived as a son or daughter of God, that they ultimately belong to God, and that earthly parents are the caretakers of children who truly belong to God? If yes, read on. (If no, there’s no point in reading on.)

2. Do you believe the ultimate reason for the existence of every child is for them to be in eternal relationship with their Heavenly Father through Jesus Christ who saves them from sin? If yes, read on.

3. If all children really belong to God, and their true destiny is to be eternally joined to Him through Jesus Christ, is it the responsibility of Christian parents to do everything in their power from the moment of conception to lead them to their Heavenly Father through Jesus Christ? If yes, read on.

4. Is the saving death of Jesus Christ the most precious, most invaluable gift available to any person? If yes, read on.

5. Did Jesus call his saving death “baptism” in Mark 10:38-39 and Luke 12:50? If yes, read on.

6. Did Paul teach that our baptism is a burial into that same saving death of Jesus Christ—His “baptism”—in Romans 6:3-4? If yes, read on.

7. If you answered “yes” to question 4, is burial into this most precious, invaluable gift the highest good for any person? If yes, read on.

8. Should a human parent, responsible for the care of God’s children, knowingly withhold from their child the most precious, invaluable  gift available to them, the greatest good? If no, read on. (If yes, there’s no point in reading on.)

9. Should human parents wait until after a child becomes ill to seek an immunization, or should they have them immunized before infection arises? (If the latter, read on.)

10. Does a child need intellectual understanding of what a particular medicine is and how it works before it should be administered to them? Does intellectual understanding affect how a medicine works? If no, read on.

11. Is Jesus Christ infinitely more powerful than any medicine? Is His power and grace able to work within a person in a way similar to but much more powerful than medicine? If yes, read on.

12. Is there a reason why the same principles in question 10 should not be applied to Jesus? If no, read on.

13. Did Jesus command baptism—which He calls His saving death and Paul calls a participation in it—as a primary mission of the Church in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16? If yes, read on.

14. Did Jesus say that infants should be brought to him for His touch—rebuking those who said they should not be—in Luke 18:15-17? If yes, read on.

15. Did Jesus also say in this passage: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it”? If yes, read on.

16. Do you now understand why baptizing infants makes perfect sense? If no, read this again.

Purgatory: Why All the Fuss?

The doctrine of purgatory is one that any Christian should easily understand and accept. So why is it not? There seems to be confusion over a fundamental difference between forgiveness and purification; they are certainly not the same thing.

If forgiveness purified me, I would never need to seek forgiveness again—if I was pure, I’d commit no offenses that need to be forgiven. But I constantly need forgiveness, so I am not yet purified. Forgiveness cleanses me, refreshes and invigorates me, and gives me a new chance.

But purifies me? No. I am not pure, despite the countless times I have been forgiven—and for that very reason I know I still need to be purified, no amount of forgiveness will do that, and I can’t purify myself.

Heaven is a place of perfection, where everyone is pure. Many people leave this earth forgiven, but no one leaves pure. A purification must take place, performed by the only One who can do so, between our passing from this earth and our entrance into Heaven. If not, Heaven is a place of forgiven people who will still need to be forgiven over and over because they have not been purified, which would make Heaven no different than earth, so what would be the point?

Really, what is so hard to understand and accept about this? And as I asked in my article about the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s perpetual virginity, why does this strike such a nerve?

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Mary: Not Just an Ovum Donor


Mary, the Mother of Jesus, is the subject of some of the more egregious myths about the Catholic faith: that Catholics consider her another mediator between God and man, another redeemer, equal to the Holy Trinity, etc. Evangelical Christians, believing these myths to be true, often react by preaching the other extreme which is just as false—that Mary holds no importance at all in the life of a Christian.

As always when faced with two extremes, the truth is found somewhere in the middle. Let’s begin to sort this out by taking a look at what the Catholic Church really teaches about Mary, and how Evangelical critics miss the mark.

We’ll begin with the myth that Catholics believe Mary is another mediator between God and man, another redeemer, or has a divine nature equal with the Holy Trinity. These excerpts from The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (“Lumen Gentium”) issued at the Second Vatican Council in 1964 dispel these notions fairly simply (emphasis added):

There is but one Mediator as we know from the words of the apostle, ‘for there is one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all’. (1 Timothy 2:5-6) The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no wise obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows His power…. In no way does it impede, but rather does it foster the immediate union of the faithful with Christ…. For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer…. The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary.” (Lumen Gentium #60, 62)

With Mary’s subordinate role to Jesus clearly spelled out in Catholic Church documentation, as well as the denial of her as a mediator between God and men or another redeemer, let’s examine the role that Mary does play in the life of a Christian, notably how she assists in the work of her Son.

Let’s first address that very idea—how can anyone assist Jesus in his work, since his work as the mediator and redeemer is something only Jesus can do? Let’s look to Paul for an answer, who wrote this to the Colossians:

“I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church…” (Colossians 1:24)

On the surface this may seem like an outrageously arrogant statement—that not only is there something “lacking” in the afflictions of Christ, but that Paul presumes to fill up this alleged deficiency in his own flesh, completing something Christ cannot finish by himself.

Of course that’s not what Paul is saying. He means that while only Jesus could win salvation—and that work is finished once and for all—Jesus purposefully left the work of bringing his salvation to all the world unfinished, and he calls others to participate in that work. That’s why Paul is traveling and writing and, in the midst of it all, suffering, because Jesus sent him to carry on the unfinished work of bringing the saving Word (which the Gospel of John tells us is Jesus himself) to all nations.

Evangelical Christians will readily let Paul off the hook, understanding what he means by “I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ,” and will not accuse him of claiming to be another mediator or redeemer equal to or even better than Christ. But they are unwilling to extend the same courtesy to Mary, who filled up in her flesh the actual, literal body and blood of Jesus Christ that would be sacrificed for the forgiveness of sins and released him to the world, playing an even more critical and intimate role than Paul in bringing the salvation of Christ to mankind.

Lumen Gentium puts it this way (emphasis added):

“Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source. The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary, which it constantly experiences and recommends to the heartfelt attention of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may the more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer.” (Lumen Gentium, 62)

Also:

[Mary] conceived, brought forth and nourished Christ. She presented Him to the Father in the temple, and was united with Him by compassion as He died on the Cross. In this singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Savior in giving back supernatural life to souls. Wherefore she is our mother in the order of grace. (61)

The unique role of Mary in bringing Christ to the world needs to be examined closely, and from a proper perspective.

No Bible-believing Christian can deny that Mary is the only woman in history to conceive a child with the Holy Spirit instead of with a man. Nor would a Bible-believing Christian belittle or diminish the sacred relationship between any two persons who conceive a child in a covenant of love, or deny that this most intimate interaction between persons involves a permanent commitment of love and trust, and a distinct role to play in and for the duration of the lives of each other and the child.

The conception of Jesus established Mary in a spousal relationship with the Holy Spirit, an exclusive relationship to which no other woman has ever been privileged. To deny that Mary enjoys this uniquely intimate relationship with the Holy Trinity—that the Holy Spirit conceived the Father’s only Son with and within her, and through her consent—is first of all to deny a basic Christian truth. To deny this also reduces Mary to merely the “ovum donor” for the Son of God; yet this is what the Evangelical treatment of Mary implies.

This term, of course, is a reference to the expression “sperm donor,” which in modern parlance is understood in both a literal and figurative sense as someone who merely gives a physical element so conception can take place, but has no further or significant relationship with either the mother or the child. In at least the figurative sense it is a pejorative term, castigating someone who should be involved but isn’t.

Yet Mary as merely an “ovum donor” is what Evangelicals imply in many of their arguments to downplay or even eliminate her importance. They often point to Matthew 12:47-50 and Luke 8:19-21, claiming these passages deny any motherly role for Mary or fraternal role for the so-called “brothers,” that Jesus dismisses his actual family by saying that anyone who does the will of God is mother and brother to him. (The irony here is interesting. Mary accomplished the will of God by giving flesh and blood to the Word, so she certainly retains her motherhood according to this definition. Any evangelical who calls himself a follower of the Word thus claims brotherhood with Jesus, and as such necessarily claims Mary for his mother.)

Evangelicals like to point out that Mary isn’t mentioned very often in the New Testament—not at all in the epistles—and that the Scriptures do not show Jesus giving his mother a role in the Church.

(Of course part of the problem is the reliance on Sola Scriptura, whose many weaknesses are explored in three other articles on this blog.)

Evangelicals imply that despite the Scriptures’ declarations of Mary as “favored one” and her exclusive spousal union with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:28, 30, 35), that she is blessed among women (Luke 1:42), that all ages will call her blessed (Luke 1:48), that Mary shares in Jesus’ suffering [which the Scriptures tell us is for the redemption of the world] (Luke 2:34-35), that Jesus was obedient to her as he grew in wisdom and age and favor (Luke 2:51-52) and responded to her intercession (John 2:1-5), that Mary’s role was simply to provide the ovum and the womb, because anyone who does God’s will is Jesus’ mother—there is nothing unique or efficacious about the motherhood of Mary.

(In fact, to reduce Mary to merely an “ovum donor,” one must still acknowledge that the Savior of the world came to the world through her. To then claim that her role in giving Jesus to the world stopped there, that God just used her body parts and had no use for her from there on, is to put God in the same place as a man who uses a woman for a temporary purpose and then lets her go.)

Evangelicals also object to Mary being referred to as the “Mother of God.” To refuse her this title is to either deny that she is the mother of Jesus or to deny that Jesus is God, or to claim that certain things can be said of Jesus’ human nature that can’t be said of his divine nature, that these are separate entities without unity, none of which complies with basic Christian theology.)

The quality, if not quantity, of Scripture passages about Mary show her unique relationship with the Trinity, as well as the many practical implications of that.

Most notable among these is what we read in John 2:1-5, when Jesus performs his first miracle after the intercession of his mother. John, to whom Jesus gave his mother upon the cross, lists Mary first when speaking of the wedding guests. This is not to indicate she is more important than Jesus, but that she has a prominent role.

John shows us in this episode that Mary is an advocate, which leads us to another Catholic teaching about her. We read in Lumen Gentium (emphasis added):

“The Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix. This, however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.” (Lumen Gentium 62)

The titles of Advocate, Helper, and Benefactress should be self-evident to anyone with knowledge of the Bible. The Bible says repeatedly that God’s people should pray for one another. It also tells us that the Body of Christ is not divided, so we are still connected with the members of the body that have gone to heaven, that they are aware of what happens on earth, and so it is proper to ask them to pray for us as our advocates, helpers and benefactors.

What may not be so self-evident is the term “Mediatrix,” which is different from “Mediator.” As noted above Mary, like Paul and others, shares in the work of Christ. Since she cooperated in a unique way with the Holy Spirit to conceive and bear the Father’s only Son, she cooperates in a unique way in helping to dispense the graces won only by the Son. (This is also why mary is sometimes called “co-redeemer.” It does not mean she is another redeemer, but is called—like Paul—to a special role of helping to spread the redemption won by her Son. Since she is the one the Holy Spirit engaged to bring the Father’s only Son to the world, she shares uniquely in this mission.)

There is a classic traditional three-fold argument against Mary as “Mediatrix,” and a classic response to it, and here it is.

Objections:

 1. There is only one mediator who is such by nature, being both truly God and truly human.

 2. There is only one mediator whose work is necessary, without whom there could be no salvation.

 3. There is only one mediator who depends on no one else for power.

Mary as Mediatrix differs on all three counts:

1. Mary is human, not God. But it is appropriate for God to choose her as Mediatrix because he made her Mother of the Redeemer. Since Mary was intimately associated with her Son’s acquiring grace for us, she also shares with him in distributing that grace to us. It was she who on behalf of the whole human race consented to God's plan of salvation by proclaiming herself “the handmaid of the Lord.”

2. Her role as Mediatrix is not necessary, since Christ was and is the perfect Redeemer and the perfect Mediator. God did not need Mary at all, except that if he decreed the incarnation, he necessarily decreed a Mother. But everything else in which God has employed her is not needed. He wants to.

God wants everything in our life to be as rich as possible, so that he will not stop with something lesser if there is more than can be done. (Why be satisfied with what is good when you can have what is great?) Even though God did not need Mary, he willed to employ her to enrich us. Even though there is no need of any other saints, God wills to add them—all to make everything as rich as possible.

3. Her ability to do anything comes entirely from her Son.

Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity: Why Do They Strike Such a Nerve?


Two Marian dogmas often attacked by Evangelical Christians are the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s perpetual virginity. Both Catholics and Evangelicals can cite Scripture verses that seem to uphold their side of the argument. In fact, these two topics accentuate the limitations of a “Bible-only” approach to faith, for Scripture does not explicitly proclaim one side or the other definitively to be right (if it did, there would be no on-going debate.) So one has to necessarily accept the limitations of Scripture to address these questions—it only takes us so far.

An Evangelical may respond to this by saying: “The reason Scripture does not explicitly confirm or deny these dogmas is because they focus on Mary instead of Jesus—the Gospel is concerned with the Lord, not his mother, so ultimately these so-called dogmas don’t matter.” A Catholic would counter with: “They matter because they don’t stop with Mary—they ultimately point to Jesus, and who He is and what He means for us. And for that we have to go beyond the limitations of Scripture.”

Rather than dive into the perpetual whirlpool of these eternally circling arguments, I want to pose this question to Evangelical Christians: What is it about these two Catholic dogmas that strikes such a raw nerve? When you contemplate Mary’s unique relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are either of these dogmas really that outrageous or out of sync with basic Christology? And if so, why?

Let’s first take a look at Mary’s unique relationship with the Holy Trinity with these excerpts from my article “Mary: Not Just an Ovum Donor”:

“No Bible-believing Christian can deny that Mary is the only woman in history to conceive a child with the Holy Spirit instead of with a man. Nor would a Bible-believing Christian belittle or diminish the sacred relationship between any two persons who conceive a child in a covenant of love, or deny that this most intimate interaction between persons involves a permanent commitment of love and trust, and a distinct role to play in and for the duration of the lives of each other and the child.

“The conception of Jesus established Mary in a spousal relationship with the Holy Spirit, an exclusive relationship to which no other woman has ever been privileged. To deny that Mary enjoys this uniquely intimate relationship with the Holy Trinity—that the Holy Spirit conceived the Father’s only Son with and within her, and through her consent—is first of all to deny a basic Christian truth. To deny this also reduces Mary to merely the ‘ovum donor’ for the Son of God; yet this is what the Evangelical treatment of Mary implies….

“Evangelicals imply that despite the Scriptures’ declarations of Mary as “favored one” and her exclusive spousal union with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:28, 30, 35), that she is blessed among women (Luke 1:42), that all ages will call her blessed (Luke 1:48), that Mary shares in Jesus’ suffering [which the Scriptures tell us is for the redemption of the world] (Luke 2:34-35), that Jesus was obedient to her as he grew in wisdom and age and favor (Luke 2:51-52) and responded to her intercession (John 2:1-5), that Mary’s role was simply to provide the ovum and the womb, because anyone who does God’s will is Jesus’ mother—there is nothing unique or efficacious about the motherhood of Mary.

“(In fact, to reduce Mary to merely an ‘ovum donor,’ one must still acknowledge that the Savior of the world came to the world through her. To then claim that her role in giving Jesus to the world stopped there, that God just used her body parts and had no use for her from there on, is to put God in the same place as a man who uses a woman for a temporary purpose and then lets her go.)”

Given all this, is it really that outrageous that the woman chosen for this unique, spousal relationship with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit who would penetrate the most intimate part of her to unite divinity and humanity fully and completely—flesh, blood and spirit—would first be preserved from original sin in preparation for this unique union of God and man? That the God who created the first woman in a state of original, sinless justice at the first creation would create another in the same state to begin His re-creation of mankind? That God would first create an undefiled temple for His only Son to be conceived, gestate and be born to the world?

Is this really that outrageous? Why does it strike such a nerve?

Or that Mary, having given birth to the Son of God, would remain a virgin the rest of her life, that the gate of the temple through which the Lord passed would remain eternally shut for that reason (Ezekiel 44:2)? That Joseph, her earthly spouse, out of reverence for Mary’s Heavenly spouse would not honor the sacredness of that relationship and refrain from entering the intimate sanctuary where divinity and humanity joined in a unique and all-sacred manner?

Is this really that outrageous? Why does it strike such a nerve?

Friday, February 7, 2014

Blasphemy and Heresy in "The Faith of Millions"

A book that is often quoted by Evangelicals to criticize the Catholic Mass is “The Faith of Millions” by Fr. John O’Brien. Anyone familiar with Catholic doctrine can’t blame them, for the book genuinely contains blasphemous material; what they don’t realize is that it does not present actual Catholic teaching. We’ll explore the blasphemy in “The Faith of Millions” in a moment; but first, a note to Evangelicals about selecting Catholic sources to cite in your work.

There is a world of difference between an official, authoritative magisterial document issued by a college of bishops and a book such as this. It is often pointed out that “The Faith of Millions” bears an imprimatur from a Catholic bishop. An imprimatur usually bears a notation in these or similar words: “The imprimatur is a declaration that a book is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that the one who has granted the imprimatur agrees with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.”

An imprimatur is not infallible, nor does it make the book an official, authoritative Catholic Church document. No individual bishop has the authority to issue magisterial teaching; that may only be done through bishops acting in collegiality with each other and the Pope. An imprimatur simply means that in the opinion of this one particular bishop, who is not protected from error when issuing statements as an individual, the work is free of error.

A bishop acting and speaking as an individual can be wrong. This is the case here. Tragically, “The Faith of Millions” contains serious error. Fortunately, it is not an authoritative Catholic Church document; in fact, it bears no authority at all.

Let’s focus on a passage that is often cited by Evangelicals, who mistakenly believe this is really Catholic doctrine. I’ll underline the portions I really need to address:

“When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man…. The priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.”

This is pretty awful stuff. And it isn’t Catholic.

First of all, the Catholic Church has never taught that what happens at Mass is the priest’s doing—true Catholic doctrine says that Jesus Himself does everything at Mass, using the priest merely as an instrument. This is clearly taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraphs 1544 and 1545 (emphasis added):

“Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the one mediator between God and men. The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, ‘Priest of God most high,’ as the prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique ‘high priest after the order of Melchizedek’; ‘holy, blameless, unstained,’ ‘by a singular offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,’ that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

The redemptive sacrifice of Christ is unique, accomplished once for all; yet it is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Church. The same is true of the one priesthood of Christ; it is made present through the ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood: ‘Only Christ is the true priest, the others being only his ministers.’”

Jesus does not bow in obedience to the priest—the priest lays prostrate in obedience to Jesus on his ordination day as he becomes an instrument through whom Jesus will act, not the priest himself. St. John Chrysostom expressed this in the fourth century, explaining why the assembly replies to the priest’s words “The Lord be with you” with the words “And with your spirit”:

“You don’t first partake of the offerings until he has prayed for you the grace from the Lord, and you have answered him, ‘And with your spirit,’ reminding yourselves by this reply that he who is here does nothing of his own power, nor are the offered gifts the work of human nature, but it is the grace of the Spirit present and hovering over all things which prepared this mystic sacrifice.”

The Catholic Church does not teach that Jesus is crucified again at every Mass. It teaches that this sacrifice which happened only one time in history is mystically made present (there’s a big difference) so people of all generations and places can be joined to the one sacrifice that was offered for their sins. (The Old Testament roots of this belief are explored in my article “What the Bible Teaches About Eucharist, Part 1”).

What the Bible Teaches About Eucharist, Part 1

There are many ways to begin this discussion, but let’s start with Jesus’ words to the Apostles at the Last Supper: “Do this in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:25) What did these words mean? We have to understand the Biblical meaning of “remembrance,” because it means something very different from our everyday use of the term in English.

For example, in the book of Genesis we’re told that after God flooded the earth for one hundred fifty days, “then God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the animals that were with him in the ark.” (Genesis 8:1) Does this mean that the omniscient God “forgot” Noah, in the way we would use that term, that Noah somehow “slipped God’s mind” and suddenly God said, “Oh yeah, Noah and the animals are floating around out there, I’d better check on them”? When the thief says to Jesus in Luke 23:42 “Lord, remember me when you come into Your kingdom,” is he asking Jesus just to think about him once in a while, or is he asking for something else?

Doug Ward offers these insights into the Biblical concept of remembrance in Grace and Knowledge: A Journal of Judeo-Christian History, Theology and Culture (emphasis added):

The Hebrew word zakar is almost always translated ``remember'' in the King James Version of the Bible. Occasionally, though, it is rendered as ``think'', ``mention'', or ``record.'' For instance, in Gen. 40:14 Joseph tells Pharaoh's chief butler,

``But think on me when it shall be well with thee, and shew kindness, I pray thee, unto me, and make mention of me unto Pharaoh, and bring me out of this house:''

In this verse, zakar is the Hebrew word for both ``think'' and ``mention.'' These variations in translation give an indication that zakar includes both thought and deed. Joseph would like the butler to do more than just be aware of the fact that he is still incarcerated. He is urging the butler to take positive action to help him get out of prison.

In the Hebrew scriptures, zakar is often used in expressions about God ``remembering'' His covenant with His people (Gen. 9:15-16; Exod. 6:5; Lev. 26:42, 45; Ps. 105:8, 42; 106:45; Ezek. 16:60). For example, we read in Exodus 2:24 that as a result of Israel's suffering in Egypt,

``God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.''

In this case, God's remembering His covenant leads to His active intervention to rescue Israel from slavery. The connection between remembrance and rescue is made very explicit in Numbers 10:9:

``And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the LORD your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies.''

The word zakar also appears prominently in the prayers recorded in the Bible. People like Moses (Exod. 32:13), Samson (Judges 16:28), Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:3), Nehemiah (Neh. 13:14, 22, 29, 31), Jeremiah (Jer. 15:15; Lam. 5:1), and Habakkuk (Hab. 3:2) pray that God will remember them and the rest of His people. Such prayers call upon God not just to be cognizant of their existence, but in addition to take action on their behalf.

Other scriptures instruct the people to remember God or His commandments (Deut. 8:18; Joshua 1:13; Eccl.12:1; Mal. 4:4). For example, in Deut. 25:17-19, Moses commands the Israelites to ``remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way....'' Here, of course, Moses is not preparing Israel for an upcoming history quiz. Instead, he wants them to take decisive action against the terrorists who had ruthlessly attacked the most vulnerable Israelites during the early stages of their journey from Egypt.

In summary, all of these ways in which the word zakar is used involve a knowledge that is accompanied by appropriate action.

This is the context in which the Jews understand the Passover ritual, which God commanded in Exodus 12:14 “This day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations.”

The Jews celebrate Passover with the understanding that they are not just thinking about an event that happened a long time ago—but that God is acting through it. The Jews believe that God makes that central saving event from their history mystically present every time this ritual is celebrated. It isn’t happening again, it is being presented again, so people of future generations and places can truly participate.

Jesus celebrated the Last Supper in the context of Passover. The Synoptic Gospels have the Last Supper as the Passover meal itself; John places it the day before. They all make the same point: Jesus is replacing the Passover lamb with himself. (In John’s Gospel Jesus is crucified at the same hour the Passover lambs are being slaughtered.)

It is in this context of a “memorial feast” that Jesus celebrated the Eucharist, and it is in this context that he told them to do this “in rembrance” of him, and it is in this context that the Apostles understood him and celebrated this new “memorial” feast at his command. They understood that just as with Passover, a divine action would accompany the ritual remembrance, that God would likewise make this saving event mystically present again—not happening all over again, but made present—so people of future generations and places could truly participate and be joined to it.

The point of consuming the flesh of the lamb was that the people would enter into covenant union with God—not just symbolically, but really. It is in that context, and with that same understanding, that Jesus instituted the Eucharist.

What the Bible Teaches About Eucharist, Part 2

The sixth chapter of the Gospel of John speaks very powerfully of the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Let’s walk through this carefully one step at a time.


John 6 opens with the only miracle story that appears in all four Gospels: the feeding of the five-thousand. It is significant that of all the miracles Jesus performed, this is the only one found in all four Gospels. As we shall soon see, its purpose as a precursor of the Eucharist makes it a very powerful sign.

Notice I called this story “the feeding of the five-thousand” and not “the multiplication of the loaves and fish,” as it is sometimes called. Jesus did not multiply anything here. Multiplication means to add to an original quantity to make a greater amount. (“Johnny has five barley loaves in a basket. He then he adds five more baskets. Johnny now has thirty loaves.”) That’s not what happened.

Jesus did not make thousands of new loaves and fish appear. That would have also been amazing, and if it had happened that way the Gospels would tell us so. But that’s not what happened. The Gospels tell us that the miracle was Jesus feeding five-thousand people with the same five loaves and the same two fish. (John tells us that the disciples “filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten.” Mark tells us “the two fish He divided among them all.”

No matter how many people consumed them, and no matter how much they consumed, Jesus fed each of the five-thousand people with the same fish and the same loaves, not new and different ones. They never changed their appearance, size or number—there was no outward change in these elements. This is physically impossible, but Jesus did it.

Next in John 6 Jesus does something else physically impossible—he walks on water. These two episodes set the stage for what comes next: a teaching that likewise seems to defy both nature and logic.

In verse 35 Jesus says “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” In verse 40 the Jews begin to murmur among themselves. Their objection at this point has nothing to do with Jesus calling himself bread. They assume he is using a figure of speech which he often did (“I am the vine, I am the door,” etc.) They object because Jesus claims to have come down from heaven.

But the conversation takes a new turn in verse 51, when Jesus says: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”

The Greek verb John uses for “eat” here is φάγω, which can mean either literal eating or figuratively consuming intellectual and spiritual nourishment. But to the Jews in this audience, the possibility at least existed at this point that Jesus may be speaking literally, as we see in their response in verse 52: “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” Nobody raised such a question when they knew Jesus was speaking purely figuratively. Nobody asked “How can this man be a vine?” or “How can this man be a door?” when they understood he was using a figure of speech. But this audience recognized that there was at least the possibility that he was speaking literally. (Especially since in that culture to speak figuratively of eating another’s flesh was a statement of hatred for that person—see Micah 3:3. If Jesus was speaking figuratively the Jews would have interpreted this to mean “Whoever hates me will live forever,” which would have made no sense.)

But starting in verse 53, after the Jews raised these objections, John uses a different verb. He now uses σάρξ, which means only a literal eating—in fact, it means to gnaw, to physically chew. After this change to the exclusively literal verb, the Jews who object are no longer murmuring—now they walk. They clearly understand Jesus to be speaking literally, and they want nothing to do with this.

His use of the Greek word for “flesh” instead of the more ambivalent word for “body” also reinforces that he is speaking of literally eating his flesh.

When we put this together with the Passover context presented in Part 1, it is clear what jesus was saying at the last Supper. This IS his body, this IS his blood.

Some commentators raise the objection of the Jewish prohibition against drinking blood which this would seem to violate. That commandment was part of the old covenant. Jesus makes it clear in Luke 22:20 that “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.” That old rule does not apply here.

What the Bible Teaches About Eucharist, Part 3

The Scriptures speak of the relationship between God and his people as a marriage:

“And it shall be, in that day,
Says the Lord,
That you will call Me ‘My Husband,
And no longer call Me ‘My Master’…
I will betroth you to Me forever.” (Hosea 2:16, 19)

“As the bridegroom rejoices over the bride,
So shall your God rejoice over you.” (Isaiah 62:5)

“Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.” (Revelation 19:7)

St. Paul makes a particular point of this to the Ephesians:

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” (Ephesians 5:31-32)

It is abundantly clear from the Scriptures that the relationship between God and His people is a marriage. In the Old Testament it was between God and the Israelites. In the New Testament it is Jesus and the Church. As Paul taught the Ephesians, just as husband and wife become one flesh, so do Jesus and the Church. There is no close relationship than to be one flesh with another. Husband and wife reach this through sexual union; Jesus and the Church through the Eucharist.

A marriage is considered consummated only once through the first act of sexual union, yet many more are needed to strengthen the bond and to lead the union towards its intended purpose. So it is with the union of flesh between Christ and the Church. It was consummated only once, but is entered into many more times whenever the Eucharist is celebrated.

What the Catholic Church Really Teaches About Justification

Catholic doctrine on the role of “works” in justification is often misunderstood by those who criticize it. It’s also misunderstood by many Catholics who try to defend it. Critics claim the Catholic Church teaches that man can be justified by his own works, contrary to the Scriptural doctrine of justification by faith alone.  Many Catholics counter by arguing that man is justified by faith, but needs to prove that his faith is genuine by performing good works.

They’re both wrong. Catholic teaching on justification is none of the above.

There is a central, crucial insight, stated very plainly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that seems to go unnoticed by both parties. We’ll get to that insight in a bit, but first let’s lay the Biblical foundations for both sides of the argument.

Both camps like to cite Scripture verses that seem to support their view. Those upholding the “faith apart from works” theory often point to the following. (All Scripture verses cited here are from the New King James translation.)

“Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.  But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.” (Romans 3:20-21)

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” (Romans 3:28)

“For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’ Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.” (Romans 4:3-5)

“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 5:1)

Those proposing an argument for the inclusion of works in justification like to cite these passages:

“But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?  And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” (James 2:20-24)

“He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:4)

“What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (James 2:14-17)

On the surface these two sets of quotations seem to contradict each other. But there is a link; the reconciliation can be found in magisterial documents of the Catholic Church, which complement these Biblical teachings about justification and illumine their full meaning.

Before looking to these documents, let’s revisit these two sets of passages. Each set speaks of a different type of “works”—namely, works that have different origins. One type of works can justify a man, the other can’t.

Read very carefully the kind of works St. Paul says are powerless to justify a man:

“Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.  But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed…. a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law…. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.”

The “works” spoken of here are man’s own works, what he does completely by himself of his own natural powers or the teaching of the law. (Paul is adamant that he is speaking here about man’s own works. He says Abraham would have “something to boast about, but not before God” because he’s speaking in the context of works performed solely by man’s own natural power.) Paul clearly teaches that man’s own works, done by his own power or by the law, are powerless to justify him.

This is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. This is stated clearly in Canon 1 from the Decree on Justification from the Council of Trent:

If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.”

The last part of this canon hints at the other type of “works” that can justify a man, the kind spoken of in the second set of Scripture quotes. The “works” they refer to are not works man performs by his own power under the law—they are the works God himself performs through a man who has faith, as God’s proof that the man’s faith is genuine.

James says this when he writes: “Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?” James speaks of faith working through a man, not the man on his own. Faith by definition is the surrender to the God we don’t fully understand, in confidence that His grace works through us to do things we cannot accomplish on our own.

It’s interesting that both Paul and James quote the same Scripture verse to support what on the surface seem to be contrary arguments: “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” (Genesis 15:6) But they’re both making the same point, using this verse in different contexts.

Paul distinguishes between a work God performs through man, and man’s own work apart from God, teaching that the former justifies and the latter does not. He also makes the case that faith itself is a work of God, not man.

Consider this carefully: “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.” No man can boast before God of his own works; Paul is saying that faith in itself is a work God accomplishes through a man, not man’s own work, and emphasizes it here: “For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’” Faith is an act that is accounted for righteousness, so it must be God’s act, not man’s. (Jesus taught this in John 6:29 when he said “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”) This is the context for Paul’s next remarks: “Now to him who works [his own works apart from God] the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, [faith, God’s work performed through man] his faith is accounted for righteousness.”

James uses the same verse from Genesis to make the same point in a different way: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, [his faith was a work of God performed through him, not by his own ability] and by [God’s] works faith was made perfect?” This is a particularly profound example of God’s work in a man, not man’s own work. For who else but God would be willing to sacrifice his own son whom he loves? This is God’s work by which Abraham is justified, not his own.

The Catholic Church teaches that these “works” do play a part in justification ; the works of God performed through a man who believes, not the works of man of his own natural power or under the law. It plainly teaches that the source of all good works is God, not man himself. It is the works of God accomplished through man, together with man’s acceptance of the faith that also comes from God alone, that justifies man. Thus justification through faith and works is ultimately God’s work and accomplishment, not man’s, though man must cooperate through his free will to allow justification through faith and God’s works to take place.

This is the true Catholic doctrine, as clearly taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Justification has been merited for us by the passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.” (CCC 1992)

“Justification is the most excellent work of God’s love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit.” (CCC 1994)

Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.” (CCC 1996)

Now here’s the central, crucial insight often overlooked by both Catholics and critics of Catholic doctrine, stated plainly and clearly in The Catechism, in which the Church gives the ultimate credit for all good works to God, not to man:

“The merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.” (CCC 2008)

So even though we read “Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life,” (CCC 2010), it is in the context of what precedes it in 2008 (quoted above) and what follows it, quoted here—the crucial insight mentioned at the beginning of this article:

“The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God.” (CCC 2011)

In other words, when speaking of “works,” Catholic doctrine clearly and ultimately gives the credit for all good “works,” and all our “merits,” to God, not man, for God is the ultimate source of all good works. Man is justified through the love and mercy of God so that he may become an instrument of God’s good works .

This is clearly Biblical. Man is made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27), the God of good works (Genesis 1, 2).  God intends to accomplish good through us as his instruments; none of us can boast of our own accomplishments. (John 3:30, Acts 9:15, Galatians 2:20, 1 Corinthians 1:29, 3:9).

 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.  For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:8-10)

So justification by faith alone, without the accompanying good works of God performed through man as God’s instrument, would be incomplete.

“Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:2)

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.” (Galatians)

With this context established, we can now better understand the Canons from the Decree on Justification issued by the Council of Trent. Among them:

Canon 3

If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.

Canon 10

If anyone says that men are justified without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us, or by that justice are formally just, let him be anathema.

Canon 12

If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than [man’s own] confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this [man’s] confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema. [Note that “confidence” does not justify us—“faith” does. There is clearly a difference, otherwise “confidence” would not have been used. Confidence is man’s work, faith is God’s work accomplished through man.]

The final two canons we’ll consider lead us to our final point on this topic:

Canon 19

If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to Christians, let him be anathema.

Canon 20

If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe, as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema.

Once again, faith alone, without the accompanying works of Jesus performed through us, is not enough. It is the works of God performed through us, not our own works, that justify us along with faith.

Consider these words of Jesus:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father.  And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.” (John 14:12-14)

It is in this context that Jesus then immediately says the following:

“If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.(John 14:15-18)

“You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.” (John 15:14)

Earlier in this chapter Jesus makes it clear that even when we obey him and the commandments, it is truly his works through us, not our own:

“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)

This is what the Catholic Church really teaches about justification.