benyola.net

Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and the Biblical Gospel

Roman Catholic teaching

Rome has never denied that salvation is based upon grace, upon the world of Christ and upon faith. The Council of Trent affirmed that faith indeed is essential to justification — but also declared faith is not sufficient in itself to yield the result of justification. In its explanation of the loss of justification through “mortal sin,” it explicitly stated that a person in possession of saving faith can commit mortal sin. According to Rome, when a person commits mortal sin while in possession of true faith, faith is not lost but justification is. Thus, a person can have saving faith without justification. He can retain the faith but lose the justification by committing a mortal sin. He can then be restored to a state of justification through the sacrament of Penance, and more specifically, its third aspect, satisfaction.

(The Sixth Session of the Council of Trent, Chapter XIV, emphasis added) “As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost: for this manner of Justification is of the fallen the reparation: which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance, when He said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,-which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament,-but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism, to those who, ungrateful to the grace of God which they have received, have grieved the Holy Spirit, and have not feared to violate the temple of God. Concerning which penitence it is written; Be mindful whence thou art fallen; do penance, and do the first works. And again; The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance steadfast unto salvation. And again; Do penance, and bring forth fruits worthy of penance.”

(CCC 980) “It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church: Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers ‘a laborious kind of baptism.’ This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn.”

(CCC 1815) “The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it. But ‘faith apart from works is dead’: when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.”

(CCC 1446) “Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. the Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as ‘the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace.'”

The Roman communion taught that faith is a necessary condition for salvation. At the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic authorities declared that faith affords three things: the initium, the fundamentum and the radix. That is, faith is the beginning of justification, the foundation for justification, and the root of justification. But Rome held that a person can have true faith and still not be justified, because there was much more to the Roman system. For instance, Rome differentiates between mortal sin and venial sin, and condign merit and congruous merit. 

The Roman view of the gospel, as expressed at Trent and reaffirmed in the Catechism (CCC 183, 1129, 1815, 2002), was that justification is accomplished through the sacraments. Initially, the recipient must accept and cooperate in baptism, by which he receives justifying grace. He retains that grace until he commits mortal sin. Mortal sin is called “mortal” because it kills the grace of justification. The sinner then must be justified a second time. That happens through the sacrament of Penance.

The fundamental difference was that Trent said that God does not justify anyone until real righteousness “inheres” within the person. In other words, God does not declare a person righteous until he or she is righteous. So, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, justification depends on a person’s sanctification. By contrast, the Reformers said justification is based on the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus. Our righteousness is not inherent, but must come from someone else. It is, as Luther said, extra nos — an “alien” righteousness. The only ground by which a person can be saved is Jesus’ righteousness, which is reckoned to him, or credited to his account, when he believes.

5 thoughts on “Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and the Biblical Gospel

  1. Richard Morin

    If you don’t mind, I would like to ask a couple of questions.

    1) Where in Scripture does it say that “Scripture alone” is required? There is a passage in Timothy that says all Scripture is “profitable”, but profitable does not equal “solely”. The Scriptures Paul was referring to was also the writings from Timothy’s youth, the New Testament was not even written yet.

    2) You said “Revelation is entrusted to Christians and every Christian, aided by the Holy Spirit, has the ability, the right and the responsibility to interpret Scripture” – isn’t this what Joseph Smith himself did? And why exactly should we entrust this method when there’s so many denominations claiming to be correct?

    3) How’d we’d get the canon of Scripture? Who put it together in the 300’s? Who was given that authority? And why do you think that the authority would eb taken away when Matthew 16:18 clearly says otherwise?

    4) Have you done studies of the Patristic period? You’ll find that the teachings of the Catholic Church have remained consistent of you look throughout the last 2000 plus years. Have you read the writings of those folks?

    1. Richard Morin

      Specifically, please read the writings of the early Church Fathers regarding Baptism. Also, I really encourage you to read John Henry Newman.

    2. Peter Benyola Post author

      Hello Richard. Thank you for your thoughtful comments and questions. I certainly don’t mind, and I always welcome discussion. I am drawing from your comments that you are probably Roman Catholic. We love you.

      Responding to your questions:

      1) When you ask, “Where in Scripture does it say that “Scripture alone” is required?”, I assume you meant to ask where in Scripture it says Scripture alone is required to communicate a message sufficient for eternal life — which is what we are chiefly concerned with in this discussion. The answer is that even the Gospel of John alone, a single New Testament book, contains a message sufficient for salvation (John 20:30-31). I’m definitely not saying that fact renders everything else in Scripture irrelevant; but from my examination of Roman Catholic claims of Magisterial authority (Catechism of the Catholic Church 82, 95), its teaching is that the Bible is not sufficient for faith and practice of Christians. That means that if we are going to square on the authority of Scripture, then its claims of self-sufficiency are the place we should start.

      2) No, this is not what Joseph Smith did. People who are Spiritually regenerated and indwelt with the Holy Spirit do not take it upon themselves to write their own volumes of scripture contradicting and attempting to denigrate the authority of the Bible in order to elevate their own, and even presume to edit and revise the Scripture itself.

      The other part of your question concerns the existence of different Christian traditions because of divergent interpretations. Please see the Scripture references above to support the point that Christians are equipped and called to interpret the Scriptures. God allows us to interpret His Word ourselves, but He does not give us permission to interpret it incorrectly. Yet, each one of us does this to some degree. It’s part of our fallen condition. But sola Scriptura is not the reason this happens — it’s actually a safeguard against it happening more often than it does.

      3) This is a complex question that I can’t possibly give proper treatment in a blog comment. A very rudimentary answer is that Orthodox Protestants believe the canon of Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books. In other words, Protestantism does not hold that the church necessarily was infallible in the formation of the biblical canon. We admit the possibility that in its review and deliberations of which books belong in the canon, that the church could have made mistakes in what it included or excluded. However, the books that were chosen are regarded as individually infallible. The council’s decisions, of course, did not change the nature of the books. Scripture is authoritative within itself — it never has and never will depend on a church council to invest it with divine authority.

      By contrast, the Roman Catholic Church believes that the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books. That is, not only are the writings of the writings themselves infallible, but in the process of assembling the canon, the church exercised an infallible ability to recognize and sanction those infallible books. Protestants stop short of making such a claim, even in the selection of the biblical canon.

      The central issue of division with respect to the authority of Scripture is the relationship of Scripture and the tradition of the church. For specific information on this issue, please refer to Chapter I, no. 2, and Chapter III, no. 1, of this study.

      4) Yes, I have read some of the Patristic writings. I’m sure I have not read all of them. In fact, in this very study, I referred to Cyril of Jerusalem on a comment that is highly pertinent to the principle of sola Scriptura.

  2. Nick

    Hi Peter, I have a couple questions regarding the canon of scripture that some what touch on your and Richard’s conversation as well as past conversations we have had. 1) Under the view of scripture as a fallible collection of infallible books, does this mean that it is the responsibility or every protestant to decide which books they believe to be infallible? If not, why not? If so, by what means should they go about doing this? Where could they even begin?

    2) Are there other books, either ancient or modern, that one should also look to in an effort to determine whether or not those works are infallible? On what grounds can one be confident on the decision that a particular book is infallible? If the collection is itself fallible, what confidence is there that any individual book in the collection is actually rather than only theoretically infallible?

    3) How would you respond to a Christian that rejected, say, Paul’s letters, or James, or John’s Gospel, or Leviticus on the grounds that he thought them fallible? Or who accepted additional books, such as the Didache, The Apostle’s Creed, I Clement, Judith, the Gospel of Thomas, or A Purpose Driven Life based on the fact that, having read them, he thought they had a rightful claim to infallibility (infallibility via inspiration by the Holy Spirit, just to be clear.) I doubt anyone would consider the Purpose Driven Life infallible, but I hope my point is evidence despite my hyperbole.

    1. Peter Benyola Post author

      Hi Nick,

      Thanks for your questions. I will attempt to answer thoroughly but succinctly.

      1) I would say it is not the responsibility of every Protestant to decide which books we believe to be infallible. Synods such as the Council of Hippo and the Council of Carthage are useful and relevant in church history. I’m simply saying that since those things lie outside the Scriptures themselves, that they might not have been subject to the same superintendence of the Holy Spirit that brought forth the Scriptures in the first place. Though, they very well could have been. It’s acknowledgement of the possibility of human error in the process of canonization, which the Roman Catholic Church does not acknowledge. Protestants recognize that no fiat of the church had the power to invest the Scriptures with authority they already had.

      The Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not some kind of free-for-all license for people to arbitrarily choose what from Scripture to believe and what not to believe, or interpret Holy Writ however one wants to. On the contrary, it was and still is intended as a call to the Christian’s accountability, to consistent, sound biblical hermeneutics, and a safeguard against unwieldy personal interpretation.

      Your last question here I believe is the most important one: Where could they even begin? I believe a good place to start is John 20:30-31: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

      2) Not to oversimplify this issue, but Christians should examine the evidence within the Bible itself to verify what books are canonical before looking elsewhere. For instance, the canon of the Old Testament as recognized by Protestants is actually very easy to provide a basis from Jesus’ own words — He canonized the Old Testament in just a few statements, using the order of the books that appeared in the Tanakh (Luke 11:49-51, 24:27, 44-88). All the books in the New Testament accepted by Protestants are books that are written by the Apostles, and they sometimes canonized each other’s writings (Luke 1:1-4, II Peter 3:15-16). Aside from that, yes, there certainly are Patristic and modern writings that deepen our understanding of why we have the Bible we have today. We don’t have room to get into that here.

      A Christian’s confidence in what is Scripture cannot be finally instilled by evidence and commentaries, but only by the inward witness of the Holy Spirit that what the apostles said and wrote is indeed God-breathed (I Corinthians 14:37, II Corinthians 3:4-6). I realize that sounds incredibly subjective because anyone can claim to believe what they believe because of the Holy Spirit — but ultimately, our belief of what is Scripture must be based on sound reason, not all of us can be correct, and even if someone has all the books of the Bible correct, he will never have a perfect and error-free understanding of the content of Scripture this side of heaven.

      3) Well, I believe God inspired those books, consequently, I would respond that unbelief in those books is sin. I would pray for that Christian and ask him to diligently study the Bible, so he will be persuaded by the Holy Spirit of what he is reading. As I mentioned earlier, it is not for every individual to come up with his own canon, but Christians are called to study for themselves to see if what presents itself as the Word of God truly is (Acts 17:11).

      I could address the Protestant view on the Apocryphal books one-by-one, but that would take forever. I would recommend reading some of the resources in the Further Study links in my original post.

      Let’s say for the sake of argument, that the Roman Catholic canon is the correct one and the Protestant canon is the wrong one. Let’s stick with your Roman Catholic Bible, Nick — Apocrypha and all. I’m on your terms now, using your Bible. Please turn with me to John 20:30, 31 (NABRE).

      “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of [his] disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may [come to] believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.”

      Nick, is there enough information in the Gospel of John, within the Roman Catholic version of the Bible, for a person to understand how to be eternally saved?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 + 3 =