Sippo explains how the foundation of a Protestant's beliefs about the bible really do rest on the authority of the Catholic Church. And that without an appeal to the Church, the Protestant has no basis for his beliefs. Art also answers questions about the Church's teaching on justification. Art's comments are in blue.
So, I have two brief questions. The first deals with the issue of authority. It seems to me that God never asks us to believe anything that can't be empirically verified.
There is a significant problem with your assertion here. Empirical verification is fraught with serious philosophical problems. Many Protestant apologists have in fact written against Empiricism including Edward Carnell, Gordon Clark, Ronald Nash, Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen. Most of them have accused St. Thomas Aquinas of this error, but they are not correct as Protestant writers Norman Geisler and Arvin Vos have shown. I must admit that I find their arguments against Empiricism very compelling.
Their critique boils down to this. Empirical verification is based upon sensory data. The problem is that INTERPRETATION of such data requires rational presuppositions on how that data should be understood. In the story of the Resurrection of Christ, an unbeliever may indeed grant that Christ rose from the dead, but by some naturalistic mechanism. People are revived from clinical death in ER's everyday. No one puts much stock in this as a supernatural phenomenon. It is only when we approach the Resurrection with the eyes of faith that we can perceive its true significance.
St. Thomas Aquinas taught that all knowledge comes to the human mind through the senses. Some people have misconstrued this to mean that he was an Empiricist. But as he showed in the Summa Theologiae (Part I, Question 84, Article 5), he believed that we come to know through the eternal forms which are present in the mind of Man who is made in the image of God. This is very Augustinian, and not empirical. In this, St. Thomas deviates from Aristotle. The reason why we come to know all things through our senses is because we are embodied minds and the sensation corresponds to the bodily part of our understanding just as the intellect corresponds to the spiritual part.
What then should be the basis for knowledge? St. Thomas would argue that it is human nature and human experience which is interpreted with the innate potential ideas in a human mind which has been made in the image of God's own mind. But our human natures have been damaged by Original sin. This means that we as individuals may not be able to properly discern the truth, especially in matters of religious faith or morals. It was St. Thomas' position that the unregenerate man could have only limited success in his understanding of the world without grace. He believed that in fact God had granted limited grace to some pagans like Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, and Virgil by which they were given some insights into the world as a preparation for the Gospel. This was not the grace of justification, but a grace that precedes justification in order to prepare men to receive it. St. Thomas would argue that without grace and special revelation, man can not have a saving knowledge of God (Summa Theologiae Part I, Question 1). Even right knowledge of non-religious matters requires that the grace of God allows us to use our faculties in a correct fashion. As such, I would argue that thinking clearly is not a morally neutral matter. Neither is it a purely natural matter. It always requires that we be open to the grace of God that is present in one form or another in the minds of all men, even the unregenerate. We have a moral obligation to think clearly and improper use of our reason can be a serious sin.
Therefore our understanding in all matters must be set right by God before we can properly interpret empirical observations. Consequently, man's mind cannot function autonomously apart from the grace of God. This is my other problem with your question. You are assuming that the individual human person can AUTONOMOUSLY decide for himself what is and isn't true in matters of religion. The Catholic position is that no one is capable of doing this on their own apart from the proper context for understanding God's word: the Universal Church that Christ founded. The Church is in fact the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Wherever the Gospel is preached and the sacraments are celebrated, the grace of God abounds and only there can we learn the truth about God. This is also where our fallen intellects receive the appropriate presuppositional foundation by which to properly understand revelation, both natural and special.
For instance, in the Old Testament God attested to all of His prophets with power so there could be no doubt of their being commissioned by the true and living God. He continued to do this with the New Testament Apostles as well.
And he also continued to do so in the Church. I think you need a history lesson. In the all of Church history up to the Reformation, there were numerous reports of miracles of all kinds. These happened at the shrines throughout Christendom and in the presence of the saints during their sojourn on Earth. When the Protestants began preaching, there were no miracles that accompanied them and in fact all miracles ceased in whatever area they were operating in. This was used as an argument against their position. Luther advanced the theory of the "cessation of miracles" alleging (in direct contradiction to the entire Christian tradition that preceded him) that the "signs and wonders" ended with the death of the last Apostle. He therefore stated that all signs and wonders that had happened after that were "lying wonders" done by the devil to lead people astray. Thus he dismissed all post-Apostolic miracles as demonic. It was rather convenient, since his movement didn't have any! Miracles among Catholics continued throughout the Reformation and to this very day. I have a cousin who was cured of Wilm's Tumor (Kidney Cancer) after being bathed in water from Lourdes. From an historic viewpoint, I think you should be very careful about using this argument.
The Bible itself has outside evidence which prove it's authenticity (manuscript evidence, archaeological proofs, predictive prophecy, etc.)
There is NO external "empirical" evidence proving Biblical inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, authority, or the limits of the Canon. All of these things were formulated, collected, taught, and defended by the Catholic Church. At the time of the Reformation, the Protestants ASSUMED these things to be true while denying the foundation (i.e., Catholic teaching authority) upon which they were based. When they did so they were being logically inconsistent. The same authority that established the Canon of Scripture also established the three-fold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon, Baptismal regeneration, the substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and justification by the infusing of righteousness into the believer (i.e., "deification").
Now, I know you are going to tell me that Scripture said some of these things about itself, but that is begging the question. Just because the Bible says something about itself does not mean that it is true. You must establish the Bible's veracity before you accept what it says. That is why sola scriptura is self-refuting. Scripture cannot establish its own credentials and in fact does not itself even imply sola scriptura. There must be a special test of veracity because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You cannot use secular scientific disciplines to prove the Bible to be the Word of God. The credentials of the Bible were established by its use in the Church. In that sense, the authority of the Bible is due solely to the Church that bore witness to it and lived in its light. If you deny the credibility of the Catholic Church's teaching claims, you have totally undermined any "verification" of supernatural claims about the Bible.
The Protestant desire to find a secular method of establishing the credentials of Scripture is a futile and disingenuous enterprise solely designed to deny the facts of Church history. The Protestant Bible was the product of Catholic dogmatic teachings and not of spontaneous "evangelical witness." We know that no one has ever come to faith by the scientific criticism of the Bible. In fact, the methods of secular science (because of their materialist presuppositions) of necessity must explain away the supernatural character of the Bible and inevitably lead people away from God. It is only scholarship done in the household of faith with correct presuppositions that leads to a saving faith in Christ.
Jesus Christ Himself stated that if He bares witness of Himself alone, then His witness should not be considered valid (John 5:31). This principle is also established other places in Scripture (Matthew 18:16).
Hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true. (John 5:30-31)
When Jesus says that if he bore testimony to himself, it was not true, he meant that he was bearing witness to the Father not to himself. He was not speaking epistemologically, but theologically. That is why you must interpret verse 31 in light of verse 30. It has nothing to do with the matter in question and has no relationship to Matthew 18:16.
But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. (Matthew 18:16)
This does invoke a biblical norm from the OT. But you forgot to quote the next verse:
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:17)
It seems that the witness of the Church per se is of greater value than that that of two lay witnesses. It is only when one refuses to submit to Church authority that they are to be excommunicated.
It seems that the dilemma we have is that there is simply no outside verification for the truth claims of the Roman Catholic Church.
You have to assume the authority of the Catholic Church in order to prove anything about God or Christ. It is a transcendental concept that must be true and cannot not be true. Without the Catholic Church, there is no Bible, there is no historic witness to Christ, and there is no methodology for interpreting Scripture. You must assume what the Catholic Church has taught on these things in order to function as a Christian and you cannot do so without also acknowledging the Church's essential infallibility beforehand.
But Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Church history all bear witness to Catholic credentials as well.
And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. "I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you will see me; because I live, you will live also... He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me. "These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (John 14:16…26)
Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. (John 16:7-10)
Clearly, this promise of Christ was that the Holy Spirit would be in the Church "forever" (John 14:16) not just while the Apostles were alive. He does not say that they would write some books which would contain his Word but that the Holy Spirit would dwell "with you and in you" (John 14:17) bearing witness to that Word. Furthermore, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit "will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:26). So it is not a matter of merely remembering Jesus' own words but of learning deeper truths from them in light of the Holy Spirit's superintendence.
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And so I tell you, you are named "rock", and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of Hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:13-19)
This is the famous Petrine authority passage and on its own establishes the authority of the Papacy and its teaching office. Note the context: in a dispute among the Apostles on who Jesus is, St. Peter blurts out the correct interpretation. Jesus says to him that "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you." That must include Jesus himself! It was the Father who has revealed it to him directly. Because of this ("and so") Jesus names him "Petros" using the Greek root "petr-" meaning "rock" with a masculine ending. Literally, we would translate it as the nickname "Rocky" in Modern English. Jesus further states that it is on this "petra" that he would build his Church. The Greek word "petra" means a huge mass of rock like a mountain. This harkens to the prophecy in Daniel:
"You saw, O king, and behold, a great image. This image, mighty and of exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was frightening. The head of this image was of fine gold, its breast and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it smote the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces; then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. "This was the dream; now we will tell the king its interpretation... And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever; just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be hereafter. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure." (Daniel 2:31-36, 41-44)
This prophecy was that the "stone" would destroy the Fourth Empire (clearly identified as Rome in Revelation) and fill the entire earth. This is the foundational prophecy of the coming of the Church. Note that the stone that would destroy the Fourth Empire was hewn from a mountain by no human hand. This means that the "stone" was chosen by God in heaven, just like St. Peter was chosen by the Father. The connection between this prophecy and Matthew 16:18 is obvious.
But there is more. Note this statement by Jesus to the Apostles:
Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. (Matthew 10:16-20)
This is precisely what happened to St. Peter in Matt 16:15-19. Jesus promised that the superintendence of the Holy Spirit will be granted to the Apostles to bear witness before the whole world. He makes it clear that this is a perpetual promise and that the gates of Hell will NEVER prevail against it.
I know that some people want to identify the stone in Daniel 2 with Christ because God is often called the "rock" in the OT and Jesus is also called that in 1Peter 2:2ff. I think that in Daniel 2, it is more appropriate to equate the mountain with Christ and the stone with St. Peter and his successors. After all, it is not Christ who went out to fill the whole world but his Apostles and the Church they founded. Jesus himself said:
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. (John 14:12 )
Also in 1 Peter 2, it says:
Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God's sight chosen and precious; and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 2: 4-5)
It is also interesting that in Matthew Jesus makes the following statement:
"Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. (Matthew 7: 24-25)
How were men to hear Jesus' words? By going to the Rock upon which the Church was to be built. Not from Jesus himself, but from his vicar, Simon "Rocky" Peter to whom he gave the power to bind and loose on matters of doctrine. Scripture interprets Scripture.
So, it is clear that the LITERAL meaning of Matthew 16:15ff squarely places the prerogatives of the foundation of the Church on St. Peter whose teachings were not from his own mind but rather were given to him "by the Spirit of the Father." Furthermore, this power was to remain in the Church forever. Since St. Peter died, he obviously needed successors in order to fulfill that promise. In fact Jesus set the example here as well:
Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." (John 20: 21)
In the Greek, Jesus literally said "As the Father apostled me, I likewise apostle you." He was making the Apostles plenipotentiary ambassadors to his ministry with the right of succession since he gave to them the same "apostleship" as he had received from the Father which included creating his own Apostles. This has been confirmed in Church tradition from the first century onwards. It was only heretics in every age who wished to deny of Apostolic Succession. This was a favorite claim of the Gnostic heretics whose ideas and values have been a major foundation of Protestant thought from its inception in the 16th Century.
If I find a Scripture which contradicts the claims of the Roman Church, I am told that only they can correctly interpret Scripture.
No part of the Bible contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church. Your personal interpretation of some passage or other may not be commensurate with Catholic teaching, but all that proves is that there is a disagreement on how to interpret the passage. Since you as an individual (and all Protestants from the beginning) have denied any claim to infallibility, while the Magisterium of the Catholic Church does claim infallibility, it is obvious that in a conflict we must assume that your interpretation is erroneous quid pro quo. Also since you are not a member of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus and are unable to take advantage of the means of grace, but rather are associated with a schismatic sect that has been tainted with heretical errors, you lack the presuppositional foundations and the grace necessary to understand the Scriptures properly.
St. Peter himself bears this out in his second papal Encyclical which is included in the Scripture:
And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1: 19 -21)
This is what the Magisterium is: the prophetic word made more sure by the superintendence of the Holy Spirit among the ministers ordered by God himself to lead his Church.
Let me go one step further. In your own Protestant system, you stand for the right to personal interpretation of Scripture. Fine. That means that in your system we Catholics are as entitled to our interpretations as you are to yours. You must accord our interpretations equal respect with your own even though you may disagree with them. You have no right to say that we are wrong. All you can say is that you disagree. If you go beyond that you are arrogating to yourselves the very authority that you have denied to the Historic Catholic Church and that would be hypocritical.
In our system, we claim final authority in matters of doctrine standing upon the constant position of the Catholic Church to which Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition bear witness. As such the Magisterium is fully within its rights to declare your views erroneous with the Authority of Our Lord and Savior who taught his Apostles that:
"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Luke 10:16)
If I find a reliable church father or tradition which is at odds with Roman Dogma, I am again rebuked and told that only the Roman Catholic Church has the ability to correctly interpret tradition.
I don't know what a "reliable" Church Father is. Some of the Fathers were either formally heretics (e.G., Tertullian, & Origen) or judged to be materially so by later Councils after their deaths (e.g., Theodore of Mopsuestia). Under any circumstance, the Church Fathers were merely the witnesses to the faith of their age. Their consensus on matters of doctrine is considered proof of that doctrine's being part of the Rule of Faith established by the Apostles. Their disagreements are part and parcel of the process of discernment of the truth as the Church tries to formulate its teaching in depth. Since no Father on his own (with the exception of a Pope teaching the universal Church as its supreme pastor) has any authority to determine true doctrine, any disagreements with later decisions of the Magisterium do not undermine the authority of the Magisterium. As the incident of the "Three Chapters Controversy" showed, a Church Father who was perfectly orthodox in his own lifetime could be retroactively condemned for holding opinions which were later deemed heretical.
The same goes for any alleged "tradition" which contradicts later defined teaching. There is "Sacred Tradition" which is infallible and normative such as the Consensus of the Fathers. There are also "traditions" whose status is in question but which may be later defined as dogmas (such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption which were pious opinions until their formal definition). There are also mere traditional customs which are discardable ands which may not receive universal acceptance throughout the Church.
In making both of these charges, specifics would be helpful. What specifically did you have in mind?
Therefore, the Roman Church seems capable only of bearing witness of herself. When it comes to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church, I am simply forced to take her word for it since I am unable to test her truth claims. I'm sure your familiar with this argument, which has been termed sola ecclesia.
The Roman Catholic Church is an historical entity whose history and teaching are a matter of clear public record. The Catholic Church is the sole original witness to Christ and to his life and teaching. It is the Catholic Church which wrote, collected, and authorized the NT books and then discerned the full extent of the Biblical Canon. It is the Catholic Church which has born witness to Christ from the 1st Century onwards and has evangelized the world. The Scriptures and the Traditions of the Church as well as the evidence of secular history clearly show the continuity between the Catholic Church today and the original Apostolic Mission from Christ. If you wish to sit outside and judge AUTONOMOUSLY what you will and will not believe of God's own revelation to men, you are arrogating ultimate authority to yourself over the things of God. You have no right to do this. Jesus never told you or any other Protestant "he who hears you hears me." That was addressed solely to the Apostles and to the successors whom they authorized.
It is not possible for a heretic or schismatic to make a consistent plea for his error because to do so, he must pick and choose from among the teachings of the Catholic Church whatever it is that he wants to believe. This means claiming greater authority for your self than you will allow to the Church upon whose teachings and sources you wish to deny. If we are wrong about papal authority, then we could be equally wrong about Biblical inspiration and the extent of the NT canon. The claim that these things can be discerned apart from the Catholic Church witness is quite frankly a self-serving lie.
I challenge you to prove definitively the extent of the Biblical Canon, the nature of divine inspiration, the inerrancy of the Bible, and the principle of sola scriptura without making any reference to Catholic teaching or to the Bible itself. I want independent empirical verification of the supernatural character of the Bible without any circular references to the Bible itself. I think you will find this to be impossible. Eventually, you must look at the historical witness of Christianity, and when you do what you find will not be compatible with Protestant teaching. That is what Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman discovered when he studied the Arian controversy of the 4th Century. It lead him to say, "To go deeply into Church History is to cease to be Protestant."
For instance, for the sake of discussion let's hypothetically suggest that the Bishop of Rome makes a statement which says that abortion is morally acceptable (I know that the current pontiff would never make such a claim, but please indulge me on this). If I want to be obedient to God's Word, I am commanded to test what the Pope says (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, but test everything; hold fast what is good, abstain from every form of evil. (1 Thessalonians 5: 19-22)
You are not interpreting this passage correctly. It does not give you AUTONOMOUS authority to decide for yourself what to believe and what not to believe. Let me quote to you St. Paul's recommendation on how to test true doctrine:
Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:12-15)
St. Paul's recommendation is to continue in what you have been taught (Tradition) and remember from whom you learned it (Magisterium) and that you also have the Scriptures. All of these things taken TOGETHER are able to instruct you for your salvation.
How can I test him? If I quote Scripture, I am told that I am misinterpreting the verses I sight. If I quote previous pontiffs, or church fathers, I am told that I am unable to interpret sacred tradition. Therefore, I am entirely unable to fulfill the biblical command to test him. I've never been able to reconcile this problem. Any ideas?
You make the matter more complicated than necessary. Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are all perspicuous enough when taken together to guide you in drawing the right conclusion. Common sources of doctrine like the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of the Council of Trent are the easiest sources to use to see what the Church has taught and to find references in Christian Source documents to support the teaching. More advanced texts would include Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum or Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. A translation of an earlier edition of Denzinger is available under the title Sources of Catholic Dogma.
On justification, I must admit that I don't think I completely understand the Roman Catholic position at all. However, it's not for lack of trying! Every time I think I understand it, I read or hear something that contradicts what I thought Rome teaches. Let me just give you my understanding of the Roman position, and maybe you can clarify and deficiencies I inadvertently hold.
Okay, that's fair enough.
It seems to me that Rome definitely believes in justification by grace alone. This grace is infused into Christians through the instrumentality of the sacraments, culminating in the life of the faithful in faith and works, both of which become the ground of final justification.
Yes, this is in line with St. Paul's teachings:
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2: 1-15)
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. (Galatians 5:6)
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God -- not because of works, lest any man 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)
You are one of the few Protestants of my acquaintance to correctly attribute the merit of good works to be the FINAL cause of our justification, not the efficient cause. That is both what the Bible teaches and what the Council of Trent defined.
It seems to me that this is the position of Trent, which seems to suggest that when Paul taught that we are saved apart from the works of the law, he actually meant only to exclude the ceremonial works of the Mosaic Law, such as circumcision, from the salvation process and not the moral commands contained in the Ten Commandments.
Pretty much, but the position is more complicated than that. When St. Paul said that the Law of Moses was abrogated he meant that we Christians did not to live as Jews but as Christians. The ethnic boundary that the Mosaic Law created between Jews and Gentiles was broken down. We could now live together in a single community without the need for separation by ritual purification. Nor were we bound by the curses and punitive sanctions placed upon Israel during its history.
Nevertheless, it seems that modern Roman apologists like Scott Hahn, Robert Sungenis, Peter Kreeft, Alan Schreck, and others believe that moral works of the law do not play a role in justification, at least not in the sense described above. Any help on this one?
The moral law plays no part in INITIAL justification. That is de fide Catholic teaching from Trent. The initial grace of justification is free and unmerited. After justification you become an adopted child in the household of God and are expected to act like one in order to glorify your Father with your life. So the moral law is the goal of justification (i.e., the final cause or motive for justification) but not the means by which we are made justified (i.e., the efficient cause; that is by grace alone).
For example, you wrote "How can you claim that there is no external evidence for Magisterial authority when the Popes, Bishops and Church Councils have been proclaiming it constantly for the last 1900+ years?" The answer is evident. How do you know that Popes, Bishops and Church Councils have been proclaiming it constantly for the last 1900+ years? You know it because the church tells you it has done so. This is the snafu. How do you know the Bible teaches the infallibility of the Roman Bishop? The Roman Church tells you it does. How do you know the fathers taught the unique infallibility of the Roman Bishop? The Roman Church tells you they did. How can these claims be tested by a laymen like me? They can't, since I can't interpret Scripture or Tradition apart from Rome's infallible guidance. Therefore, the church is capable only of bearing witness of herself, and is not open to objective testing. Do you see the dilemma?
No. You can have access to works of history. The best books for Papal Claims are Jesus, Peter, and the Keys and Steve Ray's recent book Upon this Rock. There were also books by Winter, Chapman, Butler, and Loomis from 40 years ago. The more recent books are easily available and more helpful in modern apologetic format.
There is no way to objectively sit in judgment on the revelation of God whether Scripture or Tradition. You cannot prove anything about the Bible independently from the Church anyway. It is the message of Christ received by a heart that is open to the grace of God which yields faith, not an intellectual decision that something is true.
I want to recommend to you a book by Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman: The Grammar of Assent. It is a magnificent tour de force on this very topic. When you read it you will see that the act of faith and the act of reasoning to a conclusion are not the same thing. It is a classic yet very readable. It will help you understand the matter more clearly.
You also wrote that "It is only Protestants and other schismatics who have denied Church authority." From my reading of the Reformers, it is clear that they did not deny Church authority. When and where a true church existed, they believed that the Church has considerable ministerial authority.
The Protestants were not honest about this. The teaching of the Church was very clear and unambiguous. They just didn't like it and decided to "do their own thing." Prior to the 16th Century, no one but heretics questioned baptismal regeneration, the substantial presence in the Eucharist, or the authority of the Hierarchy to teach infallibly. They set up their own criteria for a "true church" without reference to the historical understanding of the Church through the ages.
You closed by saying "the 'independent empirical verification' idea is just loony. How do you independently verify the divinity of Christ?" You verify it by His miracles which were objectively wrought before the masses, along with many other empirical proofs, most notably the Resurrection. These are all attested to with Scripture, which also has outside empirical proofs for it's divine origin. The same can not be said of the Roman Church, at least, that's the way the argument goes.
I hope I have shown how far off the mark you are with this. There is no independent verification of a single miracle of Christ’s - including the resurrection - outside of Scripture and Tradition. If you think you have one, I would love to hear about it, but I have been researching this stuff for 25 years continuously and I haven't found anything like that.
Meanwhile, it is clear that nothing like the Protestants sects ever existed before the 16th Century. The Ancient Church from the time of the Apostles onwards was thoroughly Catholic. The Protestant religions were chimeras concocted from Gnosticism, Nominalism, and bourgeoisie middle class values. The Bible was nothing more than a tool for proof texts. When the Bible did not agree with Protestant systematic theology, it was ignored, books were discarded, or novel and tortuous interpretations were applied to escape from the obvious conclusions. No one who believes in the canonicity of the Epistle of St. James could possibly accept sola fides because James 2:24 absolutely contradicts it.
In response to my question on empirical verification for Catholic claims, your lengthy response seemingly boiled down to one single proposition: “You have to assume the authority of the Catholic Church in order to prove anything about God or Christ…” Maybe I’m just too darn stubborn, but I’m not willing to just assume the integrity of the Catholic position.
Then you deny the historicity of the Christian religion. There is no witness to Christ apart from that of the Catholic Church for the first 1500 years of the Christian era. We collected the Bible! We instituted the liturgy. We evangelized the world. If you cannot accept that, then you will have to give it all up and become a Buddhist or something.
After all, this is my eternal salvation (or damnation) we are talking about here, right? Why should I trust Roman Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance?
Because you have no choice. Calvin and Luther were heretics, schismatics, and men of low moral standards. They invented a new religion that contradicted 1500 years of previous Christian belief. Why should I trust them? I am in communion with St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. Protestants deny the beliefs of all of these men and have substituted the mere doctrines of men for the revelation of God.
I’m afraid that your answer simply begs the question.
Not at all. You need to understand the nature of a transcendental argument. Transcendental arguments are those that are necessarily true a priori because without them, you cannot reason at all. For example, is the Law of Non-Contradiction true or false? Since the Law of Non-Contradictions states that something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same aspect, we have to assume that it is true in order to even ask the question.
The same is true for the Catholic claims against Protestantism. You must assume Catholic teaching (i.e., the divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, salvation by grace, etc.) in order to formulate Protestant doctrines. If you deny the authority of the Catholic Church, you have no infallible Bible, no Incarnation, and no theological framework for grace. In essence, the Protestant INCONSISTENTLY asserts Catholic dogmas while simultaneously denying that he Catholic Church can make such dogmas. It is not we who beg the question but YOU!
I repeat my challenge: Prove to me the canon, infallibility, authority, and inspiration of the Bible without recourse to any Catholic sources or authors. It is only when you can do that that you can establish a foundation for Protestantism.
If a Protestant gave you the same answer, you’d probably laugh at him.
Yes I would. Because Protestantism has no foundation in the ancient Church. It CONTRADICTS both the Bible and Tradition. It cannot be true.
Riddle me this: Luther, Calvin, et al all denied that ANYONE (including themselves) was infallible. They then invented a collection of warring sects none of which can agree with the others in theology. They contradict each other and traditional Christian teaching. Why do you think they are more credible than an unbroken line of teachings dating back to the First Century?
I also wanted to thank you for your comments as they related to my understanding of Roman Catholic soteriology. It looks like my understanding of Roman Catholic doctrine relating to salvation is pretty much on the money, but your comments helped me come to a fuller understanding of what Rome teaches.
Then you deny the historicity of the Jewish religion. There is no witness to God apart from that of the Jews for the first several thousand years of recorded history. We collected the Scriptures! We received the order of worship. We evangelized the nations. If you cannot accept that, then you will have to give it all up and become a pagan or something.
Very good! Nice turnabout. I agree with you. But you forget that indeed the First Century Jews DID have to assume the validity of Judaism to make sense of Christianity. You can't be the Christ (Hebrew: Messiach) if their is no prior expectation of your coming. In fact Jesus himself said:
Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)
Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (Matthew 23:1-3)
So Jesus did not try to replace Judaism or abolish it. Rather he attempted to fulfil the prophecies about it. Jesus' complaint was not about what the Pharisees taught, but about what they did. And since he was the perfect man, he was amply qualified to sit in judgment on human behavior in a way that no one else is.
The ultimate judgment on Judaism was the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. The Levitical Priests were killed and the genealogies necessary to establish priestly lineage have been forever lost. Since then, it has been impossible to be a Biblical Jew.
There is no comparison to what Jesus did with regard to Judaism and what the Protestants did to Catholicism. The Protestants had no authority to go around making or breaking doctrines. They were just heretics and schismatics with no standing within the Church. Unlike Jesus they did come to destroy the religion they had received. What they did was purely destructive and divisive.
Do you see my point Dr. Sippo? The very same presuppositions you operate upon would also invalidate Christianity to a first century Jew, so I’m not so sure about the efficacy of what you have asserted.
No they wouldn't. Jesus had all of the credentials to prove who he was. He met the criteria of the Messiah. The Protestants had NO credentials at all. All they had were their personal opinions and a refusal to submit to God's authority in the Church. They contradicted the teaching of the Church. Jesus and his followers did not contradict anything in Judaism. The false dichotomy between "law and gospel" was a Protestant invention which is neither in the Bible nor in Tradition. While there were elements of continuity and discontinuity between Judaism and Christianity, the essence of the Mosaic Law remains intact. Only the external boundary markers which separated ethnic Jews from ethnic Gentiles were abolished in favor of a universal human community.
When you compare the origin of Christianity to the Protestant revolt, you are trying to equate Luther and Calvin to Jesus and that will not do. The credentials of Christianity cannot be established apart from those of Judaism. Protestantism has no credentials. It depends on the credentials of Catholicism and then contradicts them. This would be the equivalent of Jesus claiming authority in Israel while denying that he was their awaited Messiah. He cannot do both. If he claims to have the authority over the Israel, he must assert a Messianic claim. Otherwise he is just another unlawful usurper. That is precisely why Historic Christianity rejects Protestantism.
My challenge remains: Establish the credentials of Protestantism apart from the credentials of Catholicism (and since you brought it up, apart from Judaism as well). I am still waiting for you to demonstrate why I should accept your religion's claims as genuine.
Art Sippo
The Catholic Legate
March 3, 2004