"Once Saved, Always Saved" and Three Cups of Tea: Cup 2

This is the second part of a three-part guest post by David Bates of the blog Restless Pilgrim, on the topic of the doctrine of eternal security, better known as “Once Saved, Always Saved”:

In the last post I began to examine the responses of Mack, a recent commentator on my Once Saved, Always Saved post who offered some constructive criticism concerning the Scripture passages I presented.

I previously looked at Mack’s commentary of 1 John 5:16-17 and 2 Peter 2:20-22. I will now look at his analysis of several other passages which I offered in defense of the idea that it is possible to lose one’s salvation. Mack basically attempted to disqualify these texts since they were drawn from letters addressed to groups of people.

So, grab another cup of tea and we’ll look at what he had to say…

Text #3: Romans 11:1-23

Scripture

David Bates

“But if some of the branches were broken off [the Jews], and you, a wild olive shoot [the Gentiles], were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree [Jesus Christ], do not boast over the branches…For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you…Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in His kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off” 

Mack’s Comments

[This] is addressed to gentiles as a group who are invited…to join the family of God, but warns them as a group of holding the Jews in contempt since God is able to turn again to Israel and dump the Gentiles (which will happen during the tribulation period). No saved individual Christians are sent to hell in the passage.

My Response

Mack emphasizes that these words are addressed to a group of people, the Gentiles. In his commentary on other passages he explains what he sees as the implication of this so I will address that point then.

A real warning?

Mack and I both agree that this passage from Romans is a warning. Paul tells his Gentile readers that they share in Christ “provided” they “continue in His kindness”. I would suggest that this is the main warning, rather than against “holding the Jews in contempt”, which Mack asserts.

I have to ask, is this a warning without teeth? What will happen if Paul’s Gentile readers don’t continue in the Lord’s kindness? Paul says that they will be “cut off”, separated from Christ. Can someone who is separated from God really enter Heaven? I don’t think so.

An immediate warning?

I may be wrong here, but I get the impression from Mack’s comments that he doesn’t think this passage has any direct relevance to the original Gentile recipients of Paul’s epistle.

Now I am speaking to you Gentiles… - Romans 11:13

It sounds like Mack thinks that these words only apply to the Gentiles at some point in the distant future. If he does believe this, I would appreciate an explanation as to why he holds this view.

So once saved, always saved? I’m afraid it doesn’t sound like it to me…

Text #4: Galatians 5:1,4

Scripture

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery…You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace”

Mack’s Response

[This] is addressed to a group of persons (saved and lost church attendees in Galatia) who are drifting off into Jewish legalism and other human self-effort types of religious do-goodisms. They have fallen from grace into legalistic bondage. No saved Christians go to hell in the passage, although they might be among all the people mistakenly caught up in legalism because of the church’s bad teachings.

My Response

As above, Mack appeals to the fact that this passage is addressed to a group of people.

Group members are people too!

I’m afraid I really don’t see what possible impact the group nature of this epistle has concerning the passage’s meaning.

For example, suppose I take a group of friends rock climbing and I say to them “You should all make sure you put on your safety harnesses otherwise you’ll hurt yourself if you fall”. I’m speaking to a group, but the truth I’ve just communicated applies to each of them individually. If they don’t obey what I say, they will each have to suffer the consequences of not heeding my words.

Likewise, Paul’s words are for the Church in Galatia, but they are obviously meant for each member.

Does gravity apply only to groups?

Again, maybe I’m misunderstanding Mack’s words, but it sounds like he thinks that groups can fall away, but individuals can’t.  How does that work exactly? If this is what he believes I find it logically problematic. If one assumes “once saved, always saved”, then the following two statements must be true:

(i) It is impossible for someone “saved” to fall away
(ii) The non-saved have never been “saved”, so there’s nothing from which they can actually fall

So, given these two statements, who exactly are these people “fall[ing] away”?

Extreme Words

Returning to the passage itself, I just don’t know how a person can be “burdened again….[returned to] slavery…alienated from Christ…fallen away from grace” and still end up in Heaven. As I asked in my original post, how could the language be any more extreme? Paul is saying that the Galatians are returning to the same slavery they experienced prior to coming to Christ!

So once saved, always saved? I’m afraid it doesn’t sound like it to me…

Text #5: Colossians 1:21-23

Scripture

“And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel”

Mack’s Comments

In the King James Bible the “ye” demonstrates that Colossians 1:21-23 is plural, a statement to the group. No individual Christians are damned in the passage, rather the local church is suppose to not move from the faith (sadly many have). Of course, individual saved people can be carried along by false doctrines (like St. Peter, see Galatians 2:13), and it would bring them into temporal condemnation only.

My Response

Mack is perfectly correct here that the King James Version (KJV) reveals that the “you” here is plural. But, again, I have to ask: so what? Groups are made up of individuals! Do warnings, when spoken to a group, not actually apply to the members of that group? Can the ”local church”, a group, “move from the faith” while itsmembers remain “saved”? Who exactly is moving from the faith?

Orthodoxy or orthopraxy?

Mack speaks about “individual saved people…[being] carried along by false doctrines”. The example he gives is unfortunately not an especially good one since it concerns orthopraxy (correct action) rather than orthodoxy (correct belief). St. Peter knew that the Gentiles were part of the New Covenant, in fact, they were first brought into the Church by Peter himself! The problem was that he wasn’t practising what he preached (Acts 15:7). Unfortunately he wasn’t the last Pope of the Catholic Church to say one thing and to do another…

Salvation by ANY faith alone

To my mind, Mack’s response implies something extremely radical. It sounds like he’s asserting that it’s possible to embrace legalistic heresies with absolutely no impact upon salvation. He concludes that there will be “temporal condemnation only” for legalism, although I’m unsure what it is he is seeing in the text to lead him to that conclusion.

I don’t know the denomination to which Mack belongs, but it seems to me that embracing this belief together with sola fide (salvation by faith alone) presents some real problems. Within Lutheran theology the only real “mortal” sin is heresy, since it strikes at faith. When someone embraces heresy, he still has faith, but in what does he have faith? He has faith not in truth, but in error. To quote St. James, can such a faith still save him?

If Mack is saying that we are saved by faith alone and that it doesn’t matter if that faith is a heretical one, I’d like to hear his explanation and reasoning.

Again with that pesky conditional…

Returning to the original passage, Mack has not addressed the important part of the sentence which was underlined in my original post: “…provided that you continue in faith”. What will happen to the members of the Church at Colossae if they don’t continue in faith?

So once saved, always saved? I’m afraid it doesn’t sound like it to me…

I’ll address Mack’s final two Scripture interpretations in my next post.

The article OSAS & Three Cups of Tea (Part 2) first appeared on RestlessPilgrim.net

"Once Saved, Always Saved" and Three Cups of Tea: Cup 1

David Bates

David Bates, on his blog Restless Pilgrim, has written a three-part analysis of "Once Saved, Always Saved," the Protestant notion that "the elect" can never lose their salvation. He gave me permission to cross-post here.  (By the way, if you're wondering about all the references to tea, he is a Brit living in the US.) Without further ado, here's part one:

I recently had some comments on my Once Saved, Always Saved post by a chap called MackQuigley. In that post I presented several passages as evidence that it is possible to lose one’s salvation. Mack disagreed with my article and said that I had misapplied these passages and that they did not, in fact, support my case.

In his final comment, Mack went through each of the passages I quoted and gave a brief summary of his own interpretation in an attempt to prove that it is not possible to lose one’s salvation. Since he graciously took the time to explain his position and challenged my post in a charitable manner, I would like to return the favour and offer a reply.

I’m going to break up my response into a few different posts, collecting together the passages where Mack used similar argumentation to disqualify the texts. For each passage, I’m going to quote the Scripture under examination, append Mack’s comments and finally offer my own rebuttal.

There are quite a few Scripture passages to address here –  seven in total – so this’ll take a little bit of time. It’s probably a good idea to put on the kettle and brew up a nice cup of tea before we continue…

Text #1: 1 John 5:16-17

Scripture

“If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death”

Mack’s Comments

[This] sin is the fleshly sins of Christian[s], some of which are serious enough to result in early physical death (1 Corinthians 5:5). The soul remains saved, this passage does not send any Christians to hell.

My Response

Mack asserts here that the “death” referred to by John is a physical death and not a spiritual one. Obviously, I disagree with this assessment…

The life and death of St. John

I would like to draw Mack’s attention to some verses which appear earlier in St. John’s epistle:

Exhibit A: “…we have passed out of death into life“  - 1 John 3:14
Is the “death” of which John speaks here physical or spiritual? Clearly, it’s the latter.

Exhibit B: “…God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son – 1 John 5:11
Is the “life” here physical or spiritual? Again, it’s clear that it is spiritual; the Beloved Disciple is describing supernatural life which comes through Christ.

Exhibit C: ”He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life” - 1 John 5:12
St. John again explains that Jesus grants us supernatural life, but he then goes on to say that a person without Son “has not life”. What’s another way of saying “has not life”? That’s easy, “has death”. Those without the Son are spiritually dead.

Given this context, when John speaks about “death” in the main passage under consideration, it’s far more likely that he is referring to a spiritual reality rather than a physical one.

I could say more in favour of the traditional Catholic interpretation of this passage, but I would like to instead consider this passage from Mack’s perspective and see if his interpretation holds water.

Sin, smiting & salvation

Let’s assume that the text is, in fact, talking about a physical death. Does this interpretation really strengthen Mack’s case?

Following Mack’s interpretation, the person being described here has committed a sin worthy of physical death! The actions of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:9-10) spring to mind. The person in question has angered God so much that He smites him! Would we really expect such a person to be immediately whisked into God’s glorious presence in Paradise? If I commit a grievous sin I’m rewarded with the beatific vision? Honestly, that seems rather counterintuitive to me,…

Making sense of life

I would also assert that, if we assume that John is talking about physical death, the passage quickly becomes unintelligible. To demonstrate this, allow me to re-render the first part of the verse, adding the qualifying word“physical” in the places where I think Mack assumes this meaning:

“If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to physical death, he should pray and God will give him physical life”

Does this sentence make any sense? Clearly not. With the inclusion of this additional word, John is now describing the situation where a Christian has committed a sin but has not died. John says that the recipients of his letter should pray for this man…but why?

Assuming Mack’s interpretation, John tells his readers that if they pray God will “give him physical life”. What on earth can that mean? I mean, it has already been established that the man is still physically alive because his sin was not too serious! What then, is this “life” which God would give him? It surely has to refer to spiritual“life” and, if the “life” is spiritual, why would one assume that the “death” mentioned is non-spiritual?

So once saved, always saved? I’m afraid it doesn’t sound like it to me…

Text #2: 2 Peter 2:20-22

Scripture

“If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.  Of them the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud’”

Mack’s Comments

[Peter] says they “escaped the pollutions of the world” which is an external filth, not an internal one. These people evidently adopted religion but were always unsaved because they never trusted Christ: they remained pigs and dogs, and their true nature won out eventually. But the saved person is a new creature: “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” 1 Cor. 5:17.

My Comments

I have to admit I’m rather confused by Mack’s comments here as they seem to completely fly in the face of this passage. Additionally, Mack begins with what seems to me to be a rather odd suggestion…

The muddy pearl

Mack asserts that the “pollutions of the world” are external, not internal and that the one has no consequence on the other. Quite frankly, what is being described here sounds more to me like Libertine Gnosticism than Christianity. Does he really think that being polluted by the world has no internal consequences? I have thirty-three years of life experience which begs to differ!

Also, consider these words of St. James:

Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. – James 4:4

What happens to the enemies of God? Will they be saved?

Recaptured slaves

As I indicated above, Mack makes a lot of assertions in his response which I can’t see grounded anywhere in the text. For example, he asserts that the people here “never trusted Christ”. What in the passage leads him to conclude this? In fact, St. Peter says the complete opposite, saying they “[knew] our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” and “the way of righteousness”!

Although they once knew Christ, the passage goes on to say that they became “again entangled” and decided to “turn their backs on the sacred command“. Mack asserts that they were always entangled, but if that were the case, why does St. Peter say that they became entangled “again”? How does that make sense? Also, is it possible to “turn [your] back” on something without ever having first embraced it?

St. Peter then quotes two proverbs, one about a dog which “returns” to its vomit, and another about a sow which“goes back” to the mud. Again, is it possible to return or go back to something which you have never left? Of course not!

For example, if I were locked up in jail and was rescued by my friends but subsequently recaptured, did I never actually leave the prison? Of course I did! I escaped…but I was recaptured. Likewise, St. Peter is saying that these people have been recaptured by sin. Earlier in his epistle, he gives us a clue as to how this will happen:

“…there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled” – 2 Peter 2:1-2

So, to conclude, St. Peter at no point says that “they never trusted Christ”. In fact, he doesn’t get even get close to saying this. His language and all the imagery he uses communicates that these people previously tasted the Heavenly gift but have subsequently spat it out.

So once saved, always saved? I’m afraid it doesn’t sound like it to me…

I’ll examine more of Mack’s responses in the next post.

The article OSAS & Three Cups of Tea (Cup 1) first appeared on RestlessPilgrim.net

Ten Great Quotes from Pope Francis

Pope Francis is a gifted orator, and an effective evangelist, proclaiming the Gospel from the world’s largest pulpit. In the short time that he’s been pope, he’s had a lot to say. Today, I want to highly ten quotations from Pope Francis that you might have missed. These are taken from ten different occasions, on a wide range of subjects related to the faith:

On the importance of Easter:

Workshop of Mario Minniti, The Five Signs (16th c.)

What was a simple act, done surely out of love – going to the tomb – has now turned into an event, a truly life-changing event. Nothing remains as it was before, not only in the lives of those women, but also in our own lives and in the history of mankind. Jesus is not dead, he has risen, he is alive! He does not simply return to life; rather, he is life itself, because he is the Son of God, the living God (cf. Num 14:21-28; Deut 5:26; Josh 3:10). Jesus no longer belongs to the past, but lives in the present and is projected towards the future; Jesus is the everlasting “today” of God. This is how the newness of God appears to the women, the disciples and all of us: as victory over sin, evil and death, over everything that crushes life and makes it seem less human. 

And this is a message meant for me and for you dear sister, for you dear brother. How often does Love have to tell us: Why do you look for the living among the dead? Our daily problems and worries can wrap us up in ourselves, in sadness and bitterness... and that is where death is. That is not the place to look for the One who is alive! Let the risen Jesus enter your life, welcome him as a friend, with trust: he is life! If up till now you have kept him at a distance, step forward. He will receive you with open arms. If you have been indifferent, take a risk: you won’t be disappointed. If following him seems difficult, don’t be afraid, trust him, be confident that he is close to you, he is with you and he will give you the peace you are looking for and the strength to live as he would have you do. (Homily, Easter Vigil, March 30, 2013)

 On the need for small (and large) proclamations of the faith:

To be sure, the testimony of faith comes in very many forms, just as in a great fresco, there is a variety of colours and shades; yet they are all important, even those which do not stand out. In God’s great plan, every detail is important, even yours, even my humble little witness, even the hidden witness of those who live their faith with simplicity in everyday family relationships, work relationships, friendships. There are the saints of every day, the “hidden” saints, a sort of “middle class of holiness”, as a French author said, that “middle class of holiness” to which we can all belong. But in different parts of the world, there are also those who suffer, like Peter and the Apostles, on account of the Gospel; there are those who give their lives in order to remain faithful to Christ by means of a witness marked by the shedding of their blood. Let us all remember this: one cannot proclaim the Gospel of Jesus without the tangible witness of one’s life. (Homily, April 14, 2013)

On the true goal of economics and politics: 

“[C]oncern for the fundamental material and spiritual welfare of every human person is the starting-point for every political and economic solution and the ultimate measure of its effectiveness and its ethical validity.

Moreover, the goal of economics and politics is to serve humanity, beginning with the poorest and most vulnerable wherever they may be, even in their mothers' wombs. Every economic and political theory or action must set about providing each inhabitant of the planet with the minimum wherewithal to live in dignity and freedom, with the possibility of supporting a family, educating children, praising God and developing one's own human potential. This is the main thing; in the absence of such a vision, all economic activity is meaningless.

In this sense, the various grave economic and political challenges facing today's world require a courageous change of attitude that will restore to the end (the human person) and to the means (economics and politics) their proper place. Money and other political and economic means must serve, not rule, bearing in mind that, in a seemingly paradoxical way, free and disinterested solidarity is the key to the smooth functioning of the global economy.” (Letter to H.E. Mr David Cameron, British Prime Minister, on the occasion of the G8 Meeting, June 15, 2013).

On war and peace:

“This morning I celebrated Holy Mass with several soldiers and with the parents of some of those who died in the missions for peace, who seek to further reconciliation and peace in countries in which so much fraternal blood is spilled in wars that are always madness. ‘Everything is lost in war. Everything is gained with peace’. I ask for a prayer for the fallen, for the injured and for their relatives.” (Post-Angelus comments, June 2, 2013)

On the Parable of the Prodigal Son:

I am always struck when I reread the parable of the merciful Father; it impresses me because it always gives me great hope. Think of that younger son who was in the Father’s house, who was loved; and yet he wants his part of the inheritance; he goes off, spends everything, hits rock bottom, where he could not be more distant from the Father, yet when he is at his lowest, he misses the warmth of the Father’s house and he goes back. And the Father? Had he forgotten the son? No, never. He is there, he sees the son from afar, he was waiting for him every hour of every day, the son was always in his father’s heart, even though he had left him, even though he had squandered his whole inheritance, his freedom. The Father, with patience, love, hope and mercy, had never for a second stopped thinking about him, and as soon as he sees him still far off, he runs out to meet him and embraces him with tenderness, the tenderness of God, without a word of reproach: he has returned! And that is the joy of the Father. (Homily, Papal Mass for the Possession of the Chair of the Bishop of Rome, Divine Mercy Sunday, April 7, 2013)

On the role of women in proclaiming the Gospel:

Friedrich Overbeck, Easter Morning (1818)

But how was the truth of faith in Christ’s Resurrection passed down to us? There are two kinds of testimony in the New Testament: some are in the form of a profession of faith, that is, of concise formulas that indicate the centre of faith; while others are in the form of an account of the event of the Resurrection and of the facts connected with it. [....]

Another point: in the profession of faith in the New Testament only men are recorded as witnesses of the Resurrection, the Apostles, but not the women. This is because, according to the Judaic Law of that time, women and children could not bear a trustworthy, credible witness. Instead in the Gospels women play a fundamental lead role. Here we can grasp an element in favour of the historicity of the Resurrection: if it was an invented event, in the context of that time it would not have been linked with the evidence of women. Instead the Evangelists simply recounted what happened: women were the first witnesses. This implies that God does not choose in accordance with human criteria: the first witnesses of the birth of Jesus were shepherds, simple, humble people; the first witnesses of the Resurrection were women. And this is beautiful. This is part of the mission of women; of mothers, of women! Witnessing to their children, to their grandchildren, that Jesus is alive, is living, is risen. Mothers and women, carry on witnessing to this! It is the heart that counts for God, how open to him we are, whether we are like trusting children.

However this also makes us think about how women, in the Church and on the journey of faith, had and still have today a special role in opening the doors to the Lord, in following him and in communicating his Face, for the gaze of faith is always in need of the simple and profound gaze of love.

The Apostles and disciples find it harder to believe. The women, not so. Peter runs to the tomb but stops at the empty tomb; Thomas has to touch the wounds on Jesus’ body with his hands. On our way of faith it is also important to know and to feel that God loves us and not to be afraid to love him. Faith is professed with the lips and with the heart, with words and with love. (General Audience, April 3, 2013)

On good and bad pastors: 

“‘Do you love me?’; ‘Are you my friend?’

The One who scrutinizes hearts (cf. Rom 8:27), makes himself a beggar of love and questions us on the one truly essential issue, a premiss and condition for feeding his sheep, his lambs, his Church. May every ministry be based on this intimacy with the Lord; living from him is the measure of our ecclesial service which is expressed in the readiness to obey, to humble ourselves, as we heard in the Letter to the Philippians, and for the total gift of self (cf. 2:6-11).

Moreover, the consequence of loving the Lord is giving everything — truly everything, even our life — for him. This is what must distinguish our pastoral ministry; it is the litmus test that tells us how deeply we have embraced the gift received in responding to Jesus’ call, and how closely bound we are to the individuals and communities that have been entrusted to our care. We are not the expression of a structure or of an organizational need: even with the service of our authority we are called to be a sign of the presence and action of the Risen Lord; thus to build up the community in brotherly love.
Not that this should be taken for granted: even the greatest love, in fact, when it is not constantly nourished, weakens and fades away. [....] A lack of vigilance — as we know — makes the Pastor tepid; it makes him absentminded, forgetful and even impatient. It tantalizes him with the prospect of a career, the enticement of money and with compromises with a mundane spirit; it makes him lazy, turning him into an official, a state functionary concerned with himself, with organization and structures, rather than with the true good of the People of God. Then one runs the risk of denying the Lord as did the Apostle Peter, even if he formally presents him and speaks in his name; one obscures the holiness of the hierarchical Mother Church making her less fruitful. (Profession of Faith with the Bishops of the Italian Episcopal Conference, May 23, 2013).

On the quest for holiness: 

Carl Heinrich Bloch, Woman at the Well (19th c.)

Draw always from Christ, the inexhaustible wellspring; strengthen your faith by attending to your spiritual formation, to personal and communitarian prayer, and to the liturgy. [...] Advance with determination along the path of holiness; do not rest content with a mediocre Christian life, but let your affiliation serve as a stimulus, above all for you yourselves, to an ever greater love of Jesus Christ. (Homily, Holy Mass on the Occasion of the Day of Confraternities and of Popular Piety, May 5, 2013)

On staying close to Christ in times of trouble:

Remain steadfast in the journey of faith, with firm hope in the Lord. This is the secret of our journey! He gives us the courage to swim against the tide. Pay attention, my young friends: to go against the current; this is good for the heart, but we need courage to swim against the tide. Jesus gives us this courage! There are no difficulties, trials or misunderstandings to fear, provided we remain united to God as branches to the vine, provided we do not lose our friendship with him, provided we make ever more room for him in our lives. This is especially so whenever we feel poor, weak and sinful, because God grants strength to our weakness, riches to our poverty, conversion and forgiveness to our sinfulness. The Lord is so rich in mercy: every time, if we go to him, he forgives us. Let us trust in God’s work! With him we can do great things; he will give us the joy of being his disciples, his witnesses. Commit yourselves to great ideals, to the most important things. We Christians were not chosen by the Lord for little things; push onwards toward the highest principles. Stake your lives on noble ideals, my dear young people! (Homily, Holy Mass and Conferral of the Sacrament of Confirmation, April 28, 2013)

 On the institution of the priesthood:

It is true that God has made his entire holy people a royal priesthood in Christ. Nevertheless, our great Priest himself, Jesus Christ, chose certain disciples to carry out publicly in his name, and on behalf of mankind, a priestly office in the Church. For Christ was sent by the Father and he in turn sent the Apostles into the world, so that through them and their successors, the Bishops, he might continue to exercise his office of Teacher, Priest, and Shepherd. Indeed, priests are established co-workers of the Order of Bishops, with whom they are joined in the priestly office and with whom they are called to the service of the people of God. (Homily, Holy Mass on the Occasion of Priestly Ordinations in the Vatican Basilica, April 21, 2013)

Obviously, these ten passages are just scratching the surface. If you want more, feel free to check out his homilies, Angelus and Regina Caeli talks, papal audiences, and letters.

The Catholic Church Against the Bible?

One of the most frequent criticisms of the Catholic Church is that She teaches Her members to trust Her,
instead of the Sacred Scriptures: that the Bible and the Catholic Church sometimes disagree, and that Catholics are forced to choose the Church over the Bible. Other variations of this argument are that we take “the Church Fathers” or “tradition” over and against Scripture.

To see why these arguments are false, consider four general propositions:

1. Scriptural Interpretation / Exegesis: “The Bible might seem to teach X, but it actually teaches Y.” 
2. Extra-Scriptural Tradition: “The Bible is silent on whether X or Y is true, but we know from Tradition that the truth is Y.” 
3. Church Disciplines / Practices: “The Bible leaves room for either X or Y policy, and we’re going to take Y.” 
4. Anti-Scriptural Teachings: “The Bible teaches X, but I want to reject X in favor of Y.”

As Catholics, we believe that it is within the Magisterial authority of the Church to do (1), (2), and (3). But we don’t believe that the Church may do (4). The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has held as much, acknowledging Her own limitations, in paragraph 10 of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council's statement of the word of God (which includes the Bible and Apostolic Tradition):

Vincent Van Gogh, Still Life with Bible (1885)

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7) 

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. 

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

So the Church lacks the ability to trump the word of God. But empowered by the Divine Commission, and perpetually guided by the Holy Spirit, we need not fear this conflict even as a possibility. Christ sent the Church out to teach the Gospel to the whole world (Mt. 28:19-20), and equips Her with the Holy Spirit to achieve the task He which He entrusted to Her.

Ironically, while Protestants criticize the Church for (1), (2), and (3), they end up doing each of these as well:

1. In correcting heretical misinterpretation of Scripture, you’re engaging in (1), showing that “The Bible might seem to teach X, but it actually teaches Y.” 
2. In saying that the (internally-anonymous) Gospel of Matthew was written by St. Matthew the Apostle, you’re engaging in (2), holding that while “The Bible is silent on whether X or Y is true, but we know from Tradition that the truth is Y.” 
3. And in deciding to have services at a particular time on Sunday mornings (and maybe Wednesday nights, as well), you’re engaging in (3): “The Bible leaves room for either X or Y policy, and we’re going to take Y.” 

The only difference is that we have a coherent ecclesiology that explains why the Church has the ability to do this. Protestants tend to deny that the Church have this ability, but are forced to do it anyway.

I don’t expect that this explanation will immediately dissolve all of the arguments against the Catholic Church. But I hope that it helps to put these arguments in perspective: are you complaining that the Catholic Church is doing something the Bible forbids? Or simply that She does something that the Bible (in your view) doesn’t require? And if it is the latter, how is that an argument against the Catholic Church at all?

Congratulations, Shane Dunlevy!

On Saturday, the Eastern Province Dominicans announced their 2013 Novitiate Class, including my good friend Shane Dunlevy. Here is Shane's vocation story:

Shane Dunlevy

I was born in Columbus, Ohio and raised 30 minutes south east of the city on 2-1/2 acres surrounded by cornfields and forests. As the youngest, I would often adventure off with my 2 older brothers, while my sister, the oldest, did more civilized things. My parents taught elementary in the public school system, and chose to send us to public schools and CCD. As a family, we attended Mass weekly, and our mother would pray with us before we went to sleep. Our parents loved us, and gave themselves to us financially and emotionally, always emphasizing academics, athletics, work ethic and faith.

Though I was raised Catholic from my youth, it wasn't until my later years of high school that I discovered the Catechism. Learning the teachings of the Catholic Church and her intelligence moved me to live the Faith more fully. The summer of 2004 I volunteered as a counselor at the Diocese of Columbus's Catholic Youth Summer Camp. During confession on the last night of camp, I could hear God calling me to be His priest. This happened two weeks before the start of my freshman year at Virginia Tech's School of Architecture + Design; I went to school, delaying my discernment.

After completing my Bachelor and Master of Architecture at Virginia Tech, I designed churches for two years at an architecture firm in Arlington, Virginia. While working for a few years, I was also in a relationship with a fantastic woman. When we began to consider marriage, we could see God was leading me to a different vocation. Though it took several years and countless reasons, I'm pursuing the call thanks to the writing of Dante and St. Augustine, the preaching of Venerable Bishop Fulton Sheen and Fr. Robert Barron, and the generosity and love of my brother Joseph and Fr. Michael Kelly, priest for the Arlington Diocese.

I discovered the Dominicans during Tenebrae of 2012, and I considered the life after meeting with the vocation directors of Arlington and Columbus. Living near the Dominican House of Studies has afforded me the chance to pray, eat and converse with the brothers. I find the balance of contemplative and apostolic life, the charism of study, the reverence of the liturgy and the fraternal community all things that could lead to a happy life fulfilled by giving people knowledge of salvation.

A spiritual family tree (from L-R): Fr. Michael Kelly, Shane Dunlevy,
and Brother Ignatius (who helped Fr. Kelly discern his vocation).

One of the reasons that I’m thrilled that Shane has been accepted is that our vocational paths are intertwined. We were in a men’s group together at St. Mary’s in Alexandria, Virginia. In 2010, a brand-new priest, Fr. Michael Kelly, took over from Fr. John De Celles as the head of our men’s group (here’s my reaction to our first meeting with him). He encouraged both Shane and I to take our vocational discernment seriously, and to get to know each another better. That advice led each of us to the seminary, and caused us to form a close and spiritually edifying friendship.

So as always, pray for vocations! And if you see someone you think might be called to be a priest, or a religious brother or sister, let them know. It could make a world of difference.

Earlier this year, I had the joy of celebrating the Feast of St. Basil the Great with Shane. Here’s how St. Gregory Nazianzen described by his friendship with Basil:

I was not alone at that time in my regard for my friend, the great Basil. I knew his irreproachable conduct, and the maturity and wisdom of his conversation. I sought to persuade others, to whom he was less well known, to have the same regard for him. Many fell immediately under his spell, for they had already heard of him by reputation and hearsay. [...] 

Our single object and ambition was virtue, and a life of hope in the blessings that are to come; we wanted to withdraw from this world before we departed from it. With this end in view we ordered our lives and all our actions. We followed the guidance of God’s law and spurred each other on to virtue. If it is not too boastful to say, we found in each other a standard and rule for discerning right from wrong.

I couldn't possibly say it any better. Oh, and for the record: we almost went to the Franciscan monastery for Tenebrae in 2012.

Edit: From Benedict Croell, O.P., here are the men who will be Shane’s classmates. Congratulations to them all!

The Time Machine Challenge

There are certain Church Fathers (mostly St. Augustine) that are loved by both Protestants and Catholics. And we Catholics are inclined to point out that these Church Fathers were Catholics then, and if they were roaming the earth these days, would be Catholics now. They were members of the Catholic Church, and they held to Catholic doctrines.

There are a number of Protestants who agree with us. They tend to either (1) convert to Catholicism, or (2) reject the Church Fathers as heretics. But there are other Protestants who challenge this description, who deny that the Fathers were Catholic then, or would be Catholic now. In this latter category falls my friend, Rev. Hans Koschmann, a Lutheran pastor from the Kansas City area. Here is his argument, in his own words:

The TARDIS

The Early Church Fathers were neither Catholic nor Protestant as those labels retain to the original issues of sixteenth century Europe and the continued fracture of the church. It is anachronistic to make the Early Church Fathers into modern day Catholics or Protestants. It is intellectually dishonest to place a label upon someone that lived many centuries before simply because we do not know what the Early Church Fathers would think about the issue of indulgences or other issues of the Reformation. We can make arguments and assumptions, but these anachronistic arguments are more likely to reveal our own opinion than those of the actual Church Fathers.

This is a reasonable objection, and Rev. Hans is right that the Fathers had no way of foreseeing the future, of knowing what would happen in the Church in the centuries after their death. But I think that the Catholic answer is stronger than this objection. In a nutshell, the Church Fathers articulated an ecclesiology that made membership in the visible Catholic Church a non-negotiable principle. To leave the Church was to leave Christ. So we have no reason to believe that any intervening changes would cause them to reject their own beliefs and abandon the Church.

Still, without a time machine, there’s no way to prove that this answer is correct. We can’t bring the Church Fathers into the present, and see how they’d react to all of the changes within the Church and within the world. But it occurs to me that there is an easy solution to this problem: simply throw our (hypothetical) time machine in reverse. Instead of trying to bring the Fathers into the present, place yourself in the past. Unlike the future, the past is fixed and certain, and the Church Fathers were prolific writers. If you want to know what the Church was like then, you can find out easily.

Herein lies the challenge: if you took a time machine back to the millenium from 200-1200, what Church would you be in communion with?

I’m not asking about if you were a seventh century peasant who’d never known about any other form of Christianity. I’m asking about you, dear reader, today, knowing what you know now. If you could hop in the TARDIS and jump back in time, what church’s doorway would you darken, come Sunday? Would you treat the Church Fathers as your coreligionists? Or as heretics, even if (perhaps) well-meaning ones?

Given that, I’m curious to how my Protestant readers in particular would respond to this. Would you be comfortable being in full communion with someone who believes in transubstantiation? With someone who venerates Mary? With someone who believes that justification involves faith and works? With someone who believes that the papacy is the visible head of the Church, and that all Christians owe the Bishop of Rome their allegiance?

If your answer to these questions is no, there are implications to that answer:

Sandro Botticelli, The Last Communion of St. Jerome (detail) (1495)

1. If you would reject the Church Fathers as heretics, this seems to undermine your ability to rely on them to prove disputed doctrines. It seems illogical to take someone you reject as a heretic (whether that be Athanasius or Pope Francis) and then use their witness as proof of a particular doctrine. Certainly, you can say, “even these heretics agree with me!” But it doesn't seem credible to, for example, cite to Augustine to prove original sin, while holding that Augustine was a heretic.
2. It also undermines your ability to use Scripture. If the early Christians are heretics, there’s no more reason to trust the Bible than, say, the Book of Mormon. No Protestant group would dream of relying on a book as Sacred Scripture solely on the testimony of the Mormon Church. If Catholics, including the early Church Fathers, are in a similar position, then there’s no external reason to trust the New Testament. As for the Old Testament, different canons of Scripture were determined by (1) the Catholic Church and (2) post-Apostolic Jews. If both of these groups are heretically in the wrong, even the Old Testament is now in serious question.
3. It also undermines faith in the Holy Spirit.  After all, if He abandoned the truth to heretics for that long, what reason have we to think that He’s not still doing that? By that logic, we might as well conclude that all Christians everywhere today are heretics.

If your answer to these questions is yes, there are implications to that answer, as well:

1. If these doctrines aren’t a reason to be in schism from the Catholic Church then, they’re not a good enough reason to be in schism from the Catholic Church now. In other words, come home to the Catholic Church!
2. The Catholic Church can offer you Communion with the Church Fathers. We have something better than a time machine. We have the Eucharist, in which we are united, through the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, with the whole Communion of Saints. This Sacrament transcends all time and space. Thus, we have the ability, at each and every Mass, to be nearer to Augustine and Athanasius than we could ever be with a simple time machine.

As always, I invite discussion in the comments below. Are there specific Fathers you definitely would (or wouldn’t) be in communion with?