A Brief Refutation of Gregg R. Allison's Critique of Catholicism

A Brief Refutation of Gregg R. Allison's Critique of Catholicism

In a recent book of essays from the Protestant perspective (The Lord's Supper: Remembering and Proclaiming Christ Until He Comes edited by Thomas Schreiner and Matthew R Crawford) Gregg R. Allison wrote an article “The Theology of the Eucharist according to the Catholic Church.” In this article, Mr. Allison portrays himself as an ‘expert’ on Catholicism alleging that he had worked closely with various Catholic evangelistic organizations. Maybe he was around those organizations, but not as a sympathetic observer. Rather he was an undercover saboteur trying to find fault with Catholicism. Mr. Allison’s hatchet job on the Eucharist and the Catholic understanding of it is quite typical of Protestants. He first asserts the superiority of his own personal interpretation of the Bible and then acts as if the Catholic Church is remiss for not agreeing with him. It never dawns on him that much of his interpretations are colored by modernist skepticism and confessional bias. His presupposition is always that the Catholic Church is wrong and the Protestant Deformers were right. He is never able to transcend his own wishful thinking and to confront the reality that the religions that have resulted from Protestant Pandemonium are in direct contradiction with the LITERAL words of Scripture at the most fundamental point imaginable and that there may be other ways of interpreting the Bible other than his own.

As a Catholic, I have always attempted to understand the Protestant viewpoint from their perspective of Sola Scriptura. Invariably, when doing so, I have found that their interpretations were forced, highly selective, and contradictory to the very words of Scripture. It is particularly disturbing that they ignore what Jesus Christ himself had to say and put their misrepresentations of St. Paul in pride of place over the clear literal words of my Lord and Savior.

It is also quite disturbing that so much of their objections to Catholicism are virtually identical with secular skepticism. When they attack the Church, they act like infidels. When they confront atheists, they fall back on Catholic authorities such as St. Augustine, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Molinos, and G. K. Chesterton. Furthermore, they advance the Bible as an independent authority with which to attack historic Catholicism while ignoring the fact that everything they claim about the Bible (authority, inspiration, canon, devotion, etc.) is derived from the actions and teaching of the Church. The false religions of the Deformation presuppose the authority of the Catholic Church while simultaneously denying that authority and in fact mocking it.

And to make matters worse, the scions of the Deformation assert that the authority of mere human scholarship is capable of discerning the eternal verities revealed in Scripture. Meanwhile they dismiss the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church as if it were mere human opinion, identical in kind to their own man-made systems of thinking.

In fact Catholicism has always taught that the Scriptures, Tradition, and the Magisterium all have the Holy Spirit as their guarantor of truth. Human scholarly efforts have always been made subservient to the superintendence of the Holy Spirit in the church throughout the ages. The opinions of mere men – no matter how educated or erudite – must be subservient to the Gospel which has been preserved in the Catholic Church.

By comparison, the multitudinous and contradictory ravings of the Deformers and those whom they have duped is merely the attempt of sinful men to create for themselves religions that ‘tickle their ears’ and have no divine warrant behind them. This is nothing more than disobedience and rebellion against God, his Christ, his Spirit, and the Church that they have founded for us. Protestantism is theological Pelagianism where the grace of God is absent in ecclesial affairs and in teaching doctrine. Instead, glib demagogues oppress people searching for Christ using mere human rhetoric.

There is a large amount of objectionable nonsense in Mr. Allison’s article. I will focus on just a few themes to demonstrate how poorly he understands the topics he claims to know and to show how fallacious certain of his assertions truly are.

The following is a quotation from pages 180-181 of the book cited above:

The formal principle of Protestantism is Scripture only; its material principle is justification by grace through faith alone. This doctrine also clashes with the Catholic doctrine of salvation and its insistence that the call to God's beatitude is experienced through (1) keeping the law; (2) justification, consisting not only of the reception of forgiveness of sins and divine righteousness, but including the renewal of sinful human nature. (3) cooperation with grace so as to love and engage in good deeds, by which sanctification is increased and eternal life is merited; and (4) involvement in the sacramental economy of the Church, especially through participation in the seven sacraments by which grace is communicated. From an evangelical perspective, (1) no one can keep the law and be justified before God (Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16-21); (2) justification is the forensic declaration of God that one is not guilty, but righteous instead, not because of any intrinsic righteousness of one's own or infused righteousness from the sacraments, but because the righteousness of Christ is imputed to one's account (Rom 3:21-4:8); and (3) the synergy of the heart in the Catholic notion of human cooperation with divine grace destroys grace and merits nothing more than condemnation, for salvation leading to eternal life is the gift of God apart from human works (Eph 2: 1-10).

As for (4) the sacramental economy of the Catholic Church, this concept is so far removed from Scripture (and even early church history) that no Protestant denomination has an ecclesiology that even remotely resembles it. The explanation for how Christ's sacrifice on the cross nearly 2,000 years ago is re-presented each time that Liturgy of the Eucharist is celebrated -- an appeal to the Pascal mystery's participation in the eternality of God -- is a theological construct without biblical warrant.

Mr. Allison begins by asserting without warrant – biblical or otherwise – what he considers to be the formal and material principles of Protestantism. The claim that the Scriptures alone should formally determine doctrine is NOT taught in the Bible. Nor was it ever held in the Church prior to the Deformation. In fact there are several places where it is clearly stated in Scripture that the Bible does no stand alone as the source of the Christian religion.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2Th 3:6 ¶ Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

1Cr 11:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

So we can see that St. Paul himself clearly advocated the authority of Christian tradition. So much so that he equated such traditions to the Scriptures themselves.
This next quotation is critically important because it relates some post-resurrection appearances of Christ that are attested to nowhere else in Scripture. The entire Church had received these stories as part of their traditions and St. Paul bears witness to the authority of those traditions:

1 Cr 15:
1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

The next quotation is often twisted by Protestants to mean the exact opposite of what it says. It is critically important to read this quotation IN CONTEXT to fully understand it:

2Ti 3:
12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted
13 while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 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.
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

In this quotation St. Paul says that there are 3 sources for sound doctrine and moral teaching:

1. Continue in what you have learned (Tradition)
2. Knowing from whom you learned it (Magisterium)
3. And… you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (Scripture)

Note well that Tradition comes first, Magisterium comes second, and Scripture comes third. This is not a minor matter. What distinguished the early Christians from the Pharisees was not that the use of Scripture because the Pharisees themselves were Scriptural experts. What distinguished the early Christians from their Jewish counterparts was their INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures (i.e., the Christian Tradition) and the TEACHING AUTHORITY of the Apostles who because of the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost were ALONE capable of rightly dividing the word.
The position of Scripture in this quotation therefore was as a SUPPLEMENT to Tradition and Magisterium. It does not stand on its own and it certainly is not considered to be solitary in its importance. It is by adding Scripture to Tradition and the Magisterium that the man of God is made complete.

Pope St. Peter in his second Encyclical wrote to confirm this:

2Pt 1:
12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have.
13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder,
14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
15 And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
19 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.
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Pope St. Peter makes it clear that the Christian people have the “prophetic word made more sure.” The ‘prophetic word’ here clearly refers to the Bible. St. Peter reminds the reader that he was present at the Transfiguration and the deepest of truths was revealed to him by God himself. He and the other Apostles were “men moved by the Holy Spirit who spoke from God” and were not the purveyors of their “own interpretation” as Protestants claim to be. The Holy Spirit revealed guided St. Peter and the Apostles so that their teaching is “a lamp shining in a dark place” and so the Christian people “do well to pay attention to” them.

This echoes the words of Jesus in St. John’s Gospel:

John 14:
12 "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.
13 Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son;
14 if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever,
17 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…
25 "These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you.
26 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 15:
26 But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;
27 and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning.
John 16:
7 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.
8 And when he comes, he will convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more;
11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Jesus clearly says that he will send the Holy Spirit to the Church after his Ascension (which is what happened at Pentecost). That Spirit will be the spirit of truth that will not only remind us of what Jesus said but also lead us into all truth. That Spirit will be “he dwells with you, and will be in you.” Clearly this is referring to the Spirit that St. Paul describes as being given at the time of ordination of the Apostle St. Timothy to the Christian ministry:

2Tim 1:
6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;
7 for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control.
Jesus also taught this to the Apostles:

Matthew 10:
17 Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues,
18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles.
19 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;
20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

So obviously this promise of the Spirit was to those in ordained ministry which is why Apostolic Succession is critical. No Protestant sect has Apostolic Succession and thus none of them are protected from error or guaranteed to teach sound doctrine. The minister ordained in Apostolic Succession receives the Holy Spirit and will not speak by his own authority (or his own scholarship, or his own opinion). He will rather bear witness to Christ and glorify only him.

Another serious deficiency in Sola Scriptura should be noted. Protestants constantly refer to the Pauline Epistles – most notably Romans and Galatians – as the very touchstones through which sound doctrine should be defined, yet the Book of Acts which describes the time period in St. Paul’s career when the major Pauline epistles were written makes no mention of their composition or their collection. Neither does Acts mention the composition of any of the Four Gospels even though we know that at least one of them (i.e., Luke) was written before Acts. In short, the Epistles of St. Paul and the Gospels were not considered important enough to be mention in Acts. The authority, collection, exposition, and inspiration of the New Testament is a dogma of the Church, not a teaching of the Bible. The Protestant claim otherwise is pure hypocrisy.

Now I am aware that Protestants have tried to cobble together new interpretations of some of these verses in order to justify their disobedience and rebellion. I have read their objections and they are laughable. They do exactly what Pope St. Peter warned us about in his Second Encyclical:

2Pet 3:
14 Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

We see that the formal principle of Protestantism is not biblical. The material principle fairs no better.

‘Justification by faith alone’ was called by Luther “the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls.” Mr. Allison rephrases this material principle of the Deformation as ‘justification by grace through faith alone.’ It doesn’t matter. Neither formulation is present in the Bible, his alleged ‘sole rule of faith.’
In fact there is only one verse in all of scripture in which the words ‘to justify’, ‘faith,’ and ‘alone’ occur together:

James 2: 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

This fact always astonished me. Protestants are arrogant and self-righteous. They treat Catholic as if we were morons who do not know the Bible. Yet here the material principle upon which their entire apostasy was based LITERALLY CONTRADICTS the simple words of Scripture.

As a Catholic, I am not interested in slogans or snippets taken out of context as the Protestants do so often. I will quote the larger context in which this verse occurs so there will be no ambiguity as to what St. James writing under divine inspiration was clearly saying.

James 2:
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe -- and shudder.
20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

Protestant controversialists have several dodges for avoiding the obvious problems here. Some claim that St. James was not talking about justification in the soteriological sense but merely in the simple demonstrative sense before men. They try to justify themselves by pointing to verse 18 and claiming that good works are merely the fruit of justification so that other people can see that you are saved. Verse 14 above, though, demonstrates that this won’t work. It asks the rhetorical question whether a faith without good works save a man. The implied answer in the Koine Greek idiom and in English is “No.” Clearly, the justification St. James has in mind is soteriological. Furthermore, verse 18 is pointing out the hypocrisy of the claim that faith lone saves. Anybody can say they believe and there is no way to prove it one way or the other. But real faith results in actions. (N.B. - It does not START with actions but results in them. Mr. Allison in his essay repeats the common slander that Catholics think that their works done in co-operation with grace saves them. This is a lie as I will show later.)

St. James clarifies his position in verse 22 where he says that “that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works.” St. James sees good works as an integral part of faith, not an optional or merely incidental result of it. In fact faith in jesus is INCOMPLETE without good works.

None of this is new. It echoes the teachings of both Jesus himself and St. Paul:

Matt 7:
13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.
18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.
21 "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
23 And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'

This following quotation from Jesus is most important because in it, he roundly condemns the whole idea of ‘justification by faith alone’ and the external imputation of an alien righteousness to one’s account.’ Clearly Jesus wants his disciples to have an intrinsic righteousness.

Matt 23:
23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity.
26 You blind Pharisee! First cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean.
27 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Jesus also tells us several times that we are to keep the commandments::

Matt 19:
16 And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?"
17 And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments."
18 He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,
19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Luke 10:
25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read?"
27 And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."
28 And he said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this, and you will live."

John 14: 15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

John 15:
9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love.
10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

St. Paul echoes this:

Rom 2:
5 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.
6 For he will render to every man according to his works:
7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
11 For God shows no partiality.
12 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.
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14 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.
15 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.

Rom 13:
8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Gal 5:
1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
2 Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
3 I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law.
4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love…
13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another.
14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself…"
19 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit,
21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.
24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

Mr. Allison claims that Rom 3:20 and Gal 2:16ff show that a man cannot be justified by works. Strictly speaking, we Catholics agree with this. Works ALONE cannot save. Neither can works after justification merit eternal life in the strict sense. Yet it is clear that the Bible teaches that good works are necessary for salvation. We will explore how this is explained later on.

The problem with Mr. Allison is that he has been duped by the errors of Luther in reading St. Paul. Luther assumed that the phrase ‘works of the law’ used by St. Paul meant that no works done according to any moral principle could possibly please God. This lead him to misinterpret these following verses:

Rom 3:20 20 For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Gal 2: 16 yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.

Happily, the New Perspective on St. Paul (a Protestant scholarly movement based on Sola Scriptura) has pointed out the deficiency here and is trying to correct it. The phrase ‘works of the law’ does not refer to all attempts at acting according to moral principal. Rather it is referring SPECIFICALLY to keeping all of the precepts of the Mosaic law according to the Sinai Covenant.

This was obvious to me when I first read Romans and Galatians. I was shocked to find out that Protestants who allegedly were committed to the Bible could not see this.

This quotation in Romans makes the point succinctly:

Rom 3:
28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law,
29 or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.
31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

According to St. Paul, the ‘works of the law’ that he is opposing are those that God expects of Jews and not from Gentiles. The only law that fits this profile is the Mosaic law. So it is only distinctly JEWISH works that St. Paul finds to be unnecessary. Truly good works that proceed from love of neighbor actually fulfill the moral requirements inherent in the Law of Moses (Rom 13). It is the LETTER of the Mosaic Law that is not necessary. The SPIRIT of that law is still required.

St. Paul gives us a clear definition of what it means to be saved in Romans 6. Sadly for Mr. Allison and his co-religionists, it is the diametric OPPOSITE of what they believe. I will quote that chapter in its entirety:

Rom 6:
1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.
7 For he who has died is freed from sin.
8 But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.
9 For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.
10 The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions.
13 Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness.
14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
16 Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,
18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.
20 When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
21 But then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death.
22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

St. Paul tells us here that we are regenerated by baptism and made into a new creation. That means that we are truly made righteous and have been infused with the very Spirit of Christ himself. We are no longer slaves of sin but now we have become slaves of righteousness. We have: “become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed” (v. 17). But even more importantly, “now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.” So we find that it is not justification that gains us eternal life but sanctification which even Protestants agree is the renewal of the whole person by the grace of God working within us.

So in Romans 6 we see:
1. The necessity of the sacramental life for the salvation of the Christian
2. Baptismal regeneration
3. The renewal of the inner man that make the baptized Christian inherently righteous
4. We become a new creation and are now empowered to please God
5. Our walking in newness of life sanctifies us more and more
6. It is this process of sanctification that secures for us eternal life
7. The entire process is by grace and thus is a gift from God and not from our own efforts.
8. Nor is this a combination of our efforts and God’s grace.
9. Grace works within us and all the responsibility for our salvation rests in God

This 9 point schema is in fact the Catholic dogma with regard to salvation.

One last point I want to confront is Mr. Allison’s assertion that “The explanation for how Christ's sacrifice on the cross nearly 2,000 years ago is re-presented each time that Liturgy of the Eucharist is celebrated -- an appeal to the Pascal mystery's participation in the eternality of God -- is a theological construct without biblical warrant.”

First of all the New Testament is clear that Jesus Christ offered himself as an eternal sacrifice and an ongpoing mediator for mankind:

Heb 7:
14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek,
16 who has become a priest, not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent but by the power of an indestructible life.
17 For it is witnessed of him, "Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek."
18 On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness
19 (for the law made nothing perfect); on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
20 And it was not without an oath.
21 Those who formerly became priests took their office without an oath, but this one was addressed with an oath, "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, `Thou art a priest forever.'"
22 This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant.
23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office;
24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever.
25 Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens.
27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself.
28 Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever.

Heb 9:
11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
12 he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
13 For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh,
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant.

Heb 9:24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

Rom 8:34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

1 John 2:
1 My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
2 and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

We also have the clear words of Jesus that the Eucharist IS his body and blood and not a mere representation of it:

John 6:
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever."
59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.
60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"
61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this?
62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him.
65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
67 Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?"
68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;
69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

The usual Protestant denial of the clear meaning of this quotation is that Jesus was merely speaking figuratively, not literally. It is easily refuted. First of all, the Jews obviously took Jesus at his word and did not think that a figurative explanation was what he intended. Secondly, Jesus could very easily have allayed the objections of the Jews by saying that he was merely talking in symbols, but he did not. He insisted that they take him literally.

Another Protestant objection is that in verse 63, Jesus says that he is talking “in spirit and in truth” which they claim once again implies a merely ‘spiritual’ or symbolic meaning. But Jesus is saying something far more profound and disturbing. He is warning the crowds that they who do not accept the necessity of eating his literal body and blood are not true believers and have not received the Holy Spirit. They are merely carnal people who cannot discern the truth of God’s word. In short, those who deny the Substantial Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist are manifesting a sign of not being members of the Elect of God.

Finally, Mr. Allison and others of his ilk fall back on the old standby that Jesus was OBVIOUSLY talking symbolically about the Eucharist. Sadly, this is the most egregious calumny of all. Mr. Allison and his confreres try to force fit their modern secular skepticism as if it were normative in the First Century. As I noted earlier, the Jews who heard Jesus did not think he was speaking figuratively and neither did the Christians who followed the teachings of the Apostles. The Consensus of the Church Fathers was that Christ was substantially present – body, blood, soul, and divinity – in the Eucharist. Retrojecting modern skepticism into the New Testament is poor scholarship. Jesus meant LITERALLY what he said and I have faith in him. I will follow what he has taught. I have no faith at all in Protestant dissembling.

With regard to the ‘re-presentation’ of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary, it was no accident that Jesus chose the Passover Seder for the institution of the Eucharist. The Seder was regarded by the Jewish people (and still is regarded by Orthodox Jews) as a‘re-presentation’ of the Exodus of the Jewish people from bondage in Egypt. In fact, participation in the Passover Seder was a biblical requirement for all members of the Mosaic Covenant as an eternal ordinance. One who failed to keep the Passover was to be banished from the Land of Israel. According to Numbers 9, if a stranger was in a Jewish home over Passover he was not permitted to participate in the Seder unless he and his entire household (including man servants and slaves) were circumcised and took on the obligation to live according to the Torah from that day forth.

Modern Rabbinic commentators see the obligation to celebrate the Passover as an act of covenant renewal between God and the Jewish people. The Passover is celebrated synchronically in order to capture the original experience of the Hebrews Exodus from Egypt under Moses. This is not merely a remembering but a full participation in this historical event.

In like fashion, the Holy Eucharist is a synchronic celebration of the sacrifice of Christ started at the Last Supper, and ongoing through Jesus’ death and resurrection, culminating in his Ascension into Heaven as an eternal Ascension Offering.

As in Baptism, in the Eucharist we participate in the death, resurrection, and eternal offering of Christ to the Father in Heaven. I cannot imagine anything that is more biblical than that.

A lot more could be said, but I wanted to make my remarks as brief as possible without sacrificing the necessary contextual citing of the Scriptures to give a robust biblical defense of the Catholic faith. Me. Allison obvious does not know his Bible very well. Even worse, he is still blinded by his confessional bias so that he refuses to see what is clearly in Scripture. He is not the expert on Catholicism or on Scripture that he thinks he is. He needs to stop and reflect on his own inadequacies and accept that the modernist views of Protestants are not the only possible ways of interpreting Scripture.

Book Review: "Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision" by N. T.Wright

The theological position of Martin Luther, John Calvin and the other 16th Century Deformers has for almost 500 years been claimed to be the result of sound biblical interpretation of the writings of St. Paul. In particular, the Deformers and their descendants have emphasized St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans and in a lesser way his Epistle to the Galatians as providing proof that righteousness before God was a matter of faith alone in Christ and his promises without the necessity of good works. Over the centuries the strident anti-nominanism that the original Deformers advocated was often modified such as in the Arminian-Wesleyan Tradition. But mainstream Lutherianism insisted that the act of human faith alone was salvific while Calvinoids insisted that the irresistible grace of regeneration given only to God's elect must precede the act of faith for it to truly save. In virtually all Protestant systems the imputation of an alien righteousness -- that is, an external righteousness applied to the believer in some sort of forensic exchange -- was what made a person righteous before God. The process was seen as passive with any disposition to good works being seen as a mere by-product that had at best evidentiary value but did not contribute in any way towards ones standing with God. This process was known as Justification. In the more mechanistic versions of this doctrine, the sinfulness of humans was imputed to Christ while the perfect human goodness of Jesus was imputed to the believer. Thus God punished Jesus as a sin bearer for human offenses and there was no need of our suffering at all. This was the doctrine of penal substitution that has been most popular in Calvinism and the more Puritanical forms of Anglicanism.

Patristic and Medieval Catholicism as well as Eastern Orthodoxy insisted that the process of becoming righteous before God was not a merely forensic declaration or an imputational exchange but an a transformation of the person brought about by the active power of grace. Catholicism always saw the relationship between the believer and God primarily as one of "adoptive sonship" in which the believer is changed from a condition of wrathbefore God to that of a partaker of the Divine nature. Orthodoxy uses the term 'Divinization.' This transformation was initiated by an act of faith that lead to baptism which itself was seen as an instrumental means of one joining the household of God. (See Romans 6.) The exact details of this transformation were a matter of discussion among different schools.

The official Catholic doctrine itself was not as strictly defined as those of the various Protestant groups and would continue to develop over the centuries. It would not be until the Jansenist controversy in the 18th Century that some of the fine points would be hammered out. Even so, there is still much more diversity in Catholicism on this issue than there is in any individual Protestant sect.

The difference between Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants was between a divinized humanity and a re-humanized humanity. Between being children of God or servants of God.

The crucial distinction came down to what it meant when St. Paul said we were "justified by faith apart from works of the law." If he meant by this ANY works of ANY law, then no transformation is needed and righteousness could be imputed. Good works then MIGHT flow from gratitude but were not necessary for one to be considered in right relationship with God. If it was more narrowly construed to mean works of a particular law (e.g., the Mosaic law) then it was only one condition that did not necessarily exclude others and this opened up the possibility that being righteous before God could be construed as a new covenantal relationship. That is, a relationship of the reciprocal donation of God's life to us and our life to Him.

Since the early 1960s there has been a growing movement among PROTESTANT biblical scholars which began to recognize that the focus of St. Paul's letters was primarily on the place of the Gentiles within the Church and not on works righteousness. They all so emphasize that the anti-nomianism of Luther et al is notoriously absent from the Bible. Krister Stendahl from Harvard wrote the first major piece mentioning this and others have followed including W. D. Davies, E. P. Sanders, and James D. G. Dunn. Collectively the position of these men and others who have had this insight have been known as "The New Perspective on Paul." (As a Catholic, I insist on calling it "The New Perspective on St. Paul .")

The most recent contribution to the New Perspective is a book by the Anglican scholar N. T. Wright entitled "Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision." This represents the watershed of the New Perspective on the matter of Justification and is essential reading for any Catholic Apologist. With only minor quibbles, I believe that Wright has gotten it right! He shows the flaws in the Protestant position which are due to a systematic theological anti-Semitism which sees far too many discontinuities between St. Paul and pre-Christian Judaism.

Dr. Wright is the author of a three volume work called "Christian Origins and the Question of God." The three volumes are:

The New Testament and the People of God

Jesus and the Victory of God

The Resurrection of the Son of God

He also did a supplementary volume that dealt with his views on the law in St. Paul:

The Climax of the Covenant: Christ And The Law In Pauline Theology

The volume under review here distills Dr. Wright's views from these very technical books into a format accessible to a more popular audience. In it he also addresses numerous criticisms that have been made of his position by Protestant dogmatists like John Piper who want desperately to affirm Protestant systematic theology no matter what the Bible actually says.

Dr. Wright is a critical advocate of the New Perspective. He finds some of the material by Sanders and Dunn to be too theological and not well informed enough by an understanding of 1st Century Judaism. Nevertheless, he makes it clear that the theological and exegetical views of Luther and later scions of the Deformation with regard to St. Paul can no longer be maintained. He also makes it clear that he follows the New Perspective in seeing St. Paul's primary opponents within the nascent Church as the Judaizers who wanted to extend the need for circumcision and a full Torah lifestyle to Gentile Christian converts. The question of "works righteousness" from the later Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian controversies really has no place here.

As Dr. Wright sees it, St. Paul envisions the righteousness of God as covenant faithfulness. God had promised Abraham that he and his descendants would be a blessing to all the nations. In return, they would be God's own chosen people. While Israel had failed to keep up their end of the covenant with God, God did not falter on His end and He sent Jesus so that His promises could be fulfilled. Dr. Wright favors the general views of John Calvin with regard to Israel over that of Martin Luther. Luther generally found the law to be a negative standard that brought troubled consciences to despair. Calvin on the other hand understood that "the Mosaic law was given as a way of life for a people already redeemed." {Wright, Justification, pg 72} In other words, Israel was redeemed by God FOR the Law that they should walk in it afterwards. (This echoes St. Paul's teaching in Ephesians 2:8-10.)

But Calvin went too far making it seem that there was no need for the pursuit of a moral life. In his view, if one has been elected, then one was guaranteed to be saved and works performed after receiving the grace of justification played no part in one's righteous state before God. As Dr. Wright points out this viewpoint is inconsistent with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and for that matter with the moral exhortations in the rest of Scripture in both Testaments {Wright, Justification, pg 75}. Instead, St. Paul makes it clear in his letters that a New Covenant has come in Christ as prophesied to Abraham (Gen 18:18), Isaiah (Isa 49:6-7; 55:5, 60:3, 66:18-21), Zechariah (Zec 8), and Jeremiah (Jer 1:5, 3:17, 4:2, 31:31ff). This New Covenant will not be just with Israel but all of the nations.

Most importantly, Dr. Wright understands that the New Covenant will come with new responsibilities that we are expected to carry out as God's Holy People. He points out that there are 3 concepts used by St. Paul to described the work of Christ in His followers: justification, sanctification, and redemption. There has been a tendency to see these words as interchangeable but in fact they represent 3 different aspects of salvation.

Justification is the new standing that we have before God through our union with Christ. Dr. Wright spends quite a bit of time explaining this in the book. It is crucial to understanding his views. He sees justification as the declaration in the here and now that God has accepted the Christian as a member of His people in anticipation of the consummation of all things at the Eschaton. So it has both an already/not yet character. The inherent tentative state this places the believer in puts Wright at odds with dogmatic Calvinism. For him, justification looks to the future, not to some 'eternal decree' in the deep distant past. Dr. Wright also sees this condition in covenantal terms. The justified are related to God as covenant partners and so reciprocal obligations are placed on both God and the believer. These important distinction cause quite a bit of trouble for Wright among his Protestant confreres.

Sanctification in St. Paul is "the actual life of holiness through the power of God working in them by the power of the Holy Spirit." {Wright, Justification, pg 156}. Redemption is the accomplishment that God has made on our behalf. All three of these are necessary for salvation in Wright's interpretation.

This understanding is very important for it supports the Catholic view on Justification. The Council Trent teaches that Justification is best described as "the adoption of sons" {Trent, Session 6, Chapters 2 & 4}. This is in essence our new standing before God.

Sanctification is the process by which we are inwardly renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit {Trent, Session 6, Chapters 7, 10, & 11}. St. Paul clearly teaches that it is through that we gain eternal life (Rom 6:22).

Redemption is the work done by God that enables us to be justified and sanctified. Apart from this redemptive work, we remain sinners before God and nothing we can do will please Him. {Trent, Session 6, Chapters 2, 3, & 6}.

Dr. Wright's exposition of St. Paul clearly rejects the main themes from Deformation theology while giving ample Biblical support for the Catholic Church's own views on salvation.

Dr. Wright makes some brief comments on the Catholic view showing very sadly that he does not understand it. Following the misinterpretations of the Caroline Divines of his own Anglicanism, he assumes that the Catholic understanding of redemption "goes too far" expecting us to made virtually impeccable by sanctifying grace. This error led many Anglicans in the past to seek a 'via media' (middle way) for their theology between the 'extremes' of Protestantism on the one hand and Catholicism on the other.

To the contrary, the Catholic view is that we are enabled by grace to grow in the knowledge and wisdom of God and to conform ourselves to the image of His Son. The grace of initial conversion is not the end for us but the first steps as children in God's own family. Growing grace is the Catholic way of understanding anticipation of the Eschaton. It is why - following Judaism - we Catholics believe there is purgation after death to prepare the soul for the resurrection.

Dr. Wright's book is absolutely indispensable for any Catholic who wants to understand what St. Paul actually taught and how to understand the Pauline corpus in the New Testament. Reading it you will see the biblical foundations of Catholic theology made plain and you will better understand why the Church rejected Luther, Calvin, et al for their errors.

READ THIS BOOK!

Where have you been Dr. Sippo?

Hi, folks!

Sorry I have been inactive here. My life has become quite busy in the last few year and I have not been doing much on this blog. Nevertheless, I will be back. More time is opening for me and I anxious to get some new postings up.

Coming soon:

Review of N. T. Wright's book "Justification: God's Plan and Paul's vision"

Review of John Salza's book, "The Mystery of Predestination"

Review of Gordon Fee's lecture series on Romans


So stay tuned!

Book Review: Catholic Apologetic Study Bible Volume III: The Epistles of Romans and James by Robert Sungenis PhD

Catholic Apologist Dr. Robert Sungenis has published a landmark book which in my opinion should be read by anyone who is serious about Catholic Apologetics. It is the Catholic Apologetic Study Bible Volume III: The Epistles of Romans and James. Bob is a former Protestant Minister who converted to Catholicism in the early 1990s. He brought with him a great love of the Scriptures and in depth knowledge of the Greek language which he has used effectively in writings and debates with non-Catholics. Bob has a somewhat controversial history and he and I have agreed to disagree on several points, but he is a first class biblical exegete and his new book is likely the best commentary on Romans and James that is available for the Catholic Apologist.

St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans and St. James' Epistle were the two biblical books that were most controversial during the Protestant Rebellion of the16th Century. Protestants from that time up to the present have tried their level best to twist and distort the clear words of these Scriptures to their own perdition often making reference to esoteric interpretations of the Koine Greek language to justify their errors. Since Bob has published his commentary, this obfuscation will no longer be possible. He deals in depth with the rules of Greek grammar and vocabulary demonstrating that the Protestants have misrepresented the texts and that the Catholic teaching on the matters of justification, nature/grace, and soteriology are thoroughly biblical.

Bob make his own literal translations of the two epistles with extensive footnotes that refer back to standard scholarly commentaries both Catholic and Protestant as well as to other relevant biblical texts, the works of the Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, other approved Catholic theological sources, and the Papal Magisterium of the Popes up to and including John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

The content of this commentary is intended for the study of Catholic apologetics and it is both informative eminently readable. After the line-by-line commentary here are several excurses that deal with apologetic topics such as "Expiation or Propitiation?," "What is Justification by Faith?," "What is Concpiscence?," "Living in the Spirit by the Principles of the Law," "The History of the Protestant Rebellion," "James' Teaching on Justification by Works," and "The Sacrament of Extreme Unction" to name just a few.

All of these excurses are superbly done and they alone are worth the price of the book. I would single my personal favorite: "Expiation or Propitiation?" This section has no parallel in any Catholic book with which I am familiar. Bob defends the idea of Christ's work being a true propitiation showing that this is entirely in line with defined Catholic teaching and approved scholarship. I have been looking for over 30 years for a solid Catholic treatment on this and I am overjoyed that my friend Bob Sungenis has produced what I consider to be the definitive exposition on this topic to date.

The long excursus on "The History of the Protestant Rebellion" is another absolute gem that once again has no parallel in any other Catholic work to do date. It is worth reading slowly and attentively.

Bob is not an advocate of the 'New Perspective on St. Paul' which has arisen over the last 30 years from within Protestant Scholarship. In myself favor the New Perspective, but it does remain controversial and many Protestant controversialists reject it vehemently because they know that it makes the traditional Protestant interpretation of St. Paul virtually impossible to justify. Even though I would have like to have Bob appropriate the New Perspective into his work, his apologetic method is probably even more effective because it utilizes the same perspectives and methods as traditional Protestant scholars and demonstrates their inherent contradictions and failures to rightly divide the Word. In essence, Bob hoists them with their own petard.

Bob does take some minority positions. For example he believes that the Epistle of St. James was written before Romans which is not the opinion held by the majority of biblical scholars. He also does not think that a mass conversion of the Jews will occur as a sign of the coming of the end times. He does believe that many Jews will convert in the end but as individuals joining the Church, not as a distinctly Jewish movement into Christianity. This places him at odds with the majority of Christian biblical scholars.

These unconventional opinions do not detract from the central theme of the work and such things are to be expect whenever a scholar takes pen in hand to take a fresh look at the Biblical text.

I cannot recommend this book more highly. I encourage anyone interested in Catholic Apologetics to get this book and study it carefully. I also want to congratulate Dr. Robert Sungenis on a great work of Catholic Apologetics.

The book is available for purchase on Bob's website:

http://www.catholicintl.com/cubecart/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=3

As an additional note, Bob has recently updated his classic book Not By Faith Alone which is his in depth exposition on the doctrine of justification. In this Second Edition, he answers the objections of Protestant critics and has added a new section on the joint declaration of the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation on justification. It is avaialable as an e-book download on his website:

http://www.catholicintl.com/cubecart/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=70

Corrigenda to "The Sources of Catholic Dogma" 1957 Edition

The most recent translation of the Denzinger Enchiridion Symbolorum into English was done by Fr. Roy J. Deferrari in 1957. It is the most common English translation of Denzinger that has been reprinted. Unfortunately, it also had some 16 serious errors in its text and a Corrigenda has been available which corrects them.

It has recently come to my attention that the Corrigenda is not available on the Internet so that people who purchasde this fine volume may correct their text.

As a public service, I am publishing the Corrigenda on my blog:

Corrigenda

(The Sources of Catholic Dogma)

Page 31, number 74, read "is true God" for "is not true God."

Page 49, number 111a, from lines 3 through 6 read: "that the Word, in an ineffable and inconceivable manner, having hypostatically united to Himself flesh animated by a rational soul, became Man and was called the Son of Man," also lines 11 through 14, read;"For it was no ordinary man who was first born of the Holv Virgin and upon whom the Word afterwards descended; butt being united from the womb itself He is said to have undergone fleshly birth, claiming as His own the birth of His own flesh."

Page 61, number 148, second column, line 15, read "nowhere removed" for “removed”

Page 87, number 218, read "but not as if the word of God" for "but as if the Word of God."

Paige 87, number 219, substitute the following for the first three lines: "If anyone speaking on two natures does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is acknowledged as in His Divinity as well as in His Manhood, in order that by this he may signify the difference of the natures in which". Also the following for the last six lines but one: "if he accepts such an expression as this with regard to the mystery of Christ, or, acknowledging a number of natures in the same one Lord our Jesus, Christ the Word of God made flesh, but does not accept the difference of these [natures] of which He is also composed, which is not destroyed by the union (for one is from both, and through one both), but in this uses number in such a way"

Page 102, number 257. Insert after "Jesus Christ" and before "consubstantial": “consubstantial with God and His Father according to His divine nature and".

Page 117, number 296. Insert in line 5 after Holy Spirit: "just as God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit"; also read; "which according to substance" for "according to substance which"

Page 194, line 3, read "voiding" for "voicing"

Page 219, number 691, for lines 12 through 16, read: "And since all that the Father has, the Father himself, in begetting, has given to His only begotten Son, with the exception of Fatherhood, the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, Sol], the Son himself has from the Father eternally, by whom He was begotten also eternally"

Paige 225, number 703, add after "one eternity" "and all these things are one"

Page 250, number 797, read "does not do nothing at all" for "does nothing at all”

Page 259, number 818, "we flee to the mercy of God" for "we flee the mercy of God”

Page 316, number 1096, read "intended" for "understand", and add "alone" after "predestined"

Page 457, number 1839 read "by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority defines" for "in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains”; also "possesses that infallibility" for "operates with that infallibility”; also "His church be endowed" for "His church be instructed”, and “of themselves” for "from himself”

Page 556, number 2164, read "it is permitted for exegetes to dispute freely" for "it is impossible etc."

Page 633, number 2302, last sentence. Read "in no sense of the word historical", for "in a sense of the word historical"

Blessed are You When Men Hate You: The Attack on Patty Bonds and Stephen Ray

Patty Bonds converted to the Catholic faith in 2000. She was one of many thousands who did so that year in the United States. There was no great fanfare about it. Many of us who had come to know her were pleased to receive her as our sister in Christ. There was one person though who was not pleased and who has been very vociferous in his condemnation of her over the years for her conversion. This was her brother, James White who is a Reformed Baptist minister with a terrible animosity towards the Catholic Church.

Patty had published her spiritual autobiography -- Out of the Darkness -- on the web and it was a thoughtful reflection on her conversion and her joy on discovering the Catholic Church. Very recently, she revised this autobiography to include the claim that she was sexually molested by her and James' father who himself was a Reformed Baptist pastor.

I have been privy to this information for several years but have kept it confidential. She had told this to me so that I might understand the kind of family life in which she and James had grown up. Indeed such a morally dysfunctional family and the hypocrisy of a minister who condemns Catholics for allegedly being immoral while he continued to sexually violate his own daughter could help explain many features of Mr. White's personality. Patty hoped this information would help me to understand and forgive her brother for some of the things he had said about me.

I have avoided mentioning Patty's connection with her brother, James White. She is a private person and I had no desire to embarrass her or her family. Now that she is making her allegations public, I feel the need to support her. She is doing a very brave thing by talking about this.

Incestuous sexual abuse is a problem that no one wants to talk about and its prevalence is greater than most people can imagine. The victims feel helpless and often times they have no one to whom they can turn. And the abusers themselves are in need of serious help as well. It is only when we face up to the reality of this problem that we can deal with it effectively.

Patty Bond's revised autobiography was featured at Stephen Ray's website and on his blog. here are those addresses:

http://www.catholic-convert.com/Default.aspx

http://blog.catholic-convert.com/?p=3332


Patty Bonds has her own website and an apostolate directed at Catholic apologetics and spirituality. Patty has appeared on EWTN's program The Journey Home twice, the audios of which can be found HERE and HERE. You can judge for yourself how articulate she is.

Steve Ray has been a friend of mine for over 15 years. He, his wife Janet and their children are converts to Catholicism from the Baptists and he has been a terrific apologist for our faith. Steve has written several books including Upon This Rock, Crossing the Tiber, Papacy Learning Guide, St. John's Gospel: Commentary and Study Guide, We Have a Pope, and his latest book Faith for Beginners: Understanding the Creeds. He is also the producer and star of the Footprints of God Video Series which was filmed on location in Israel, Turkey, and Rome.

Steve used to teach a weekly bible class that I attended at Domino's Farm in Ann Arbor, Michigan when we lived in Toledo, Ohio. On St. Valentine's Day in 1995, his apostolate held a dinner for married couples at which my wife and I re-took our marriage vows. Steve and Janet are wonderful Christian people and they have done tremendous good in and for the Catholic Church.

Steve had previously written about Patty Bonds HERE and HERE.

After Steve featured Patty Bond's revised conversion story on his website, it provoked a reaction from Mr. James White who was understandably upset. There is currently a viral video on You Tube in which Mr. White not only denies his sister's allegations but personally attacks her intelligence and integrity along with that of Steve Ray. In fact White DEMANDS that the Catholic Apologist community "silence" Steve and rebuke him not only for his support of Patty but for other disagreements that Ray and White have had over the years.

Steve has responded to him here:

http://blog.catholic-convert.com/?p=3637

Patty Bonds has posted a response to her brother's attack HERE.

While I can understand that Mr. White is upset about these revelations, I think that he has crossed a line. It is one thing to deny allegations made about your family. It is another to vilify your sister and to make ridiculous demands concerning the right of free speech. Mr. White has constantly charged Catholics with being ignorant and under the thrall of the Pope which is rabid nonsense. White glories in the fact that as a Protestant no one call tell him what to say. Now he demands that somebody shut up his sister and Steve Ray and violate the very rights to free speech that he demands for himself. To say this is hypocritical is understating the case.

Furthermore, White's own behavior over the years has often struck those of us unfortunate enough to have to deal with him as showing signs of moral disorder and mental aberration. If Patty's allegations are true, it explains a lot about James and it makes it imperative that he get some counseling.

Several times in the past I have recommended to the sad and dysfunctional Mr. White that he needed to seek professional help for his aberrant state of mind. He has dismissed this out of hand. But his current disgraceful shenanigans lead me once again to beg him to get some help. As always I keep James in my prayers in the hope that someday God will show him the error of his ways and convert him to Christ.

In the meantime, I give my full personal support to Patty Bonds and Steve Ray and their respective apostolates. They are both fine Catholic apologists and personal friends of mine. I will keep them in my prayers. Here are their respective web sites:

http://abbaslittlegirl.blogspot.com/

http://catholic-convert.com/

Catholic Apologist and budding theologian William Albrecht has composed his own You Tube video in response to White's attack on Patty and Steve:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbYElJcrPMc


My friend and long time Catholic Apologist Pat Madrid wrote an article about his experiences with Mr. White in 1993 which is still relevant today:

http://www.patrickmadrid.com/whitemansburden.htm

Please keep Patty, Steve, and James in your prayers.

Arthur C. Sippo MD, MPH

Why 'Embryo Rescue' is not Ethically Acceptable

This past weekend I attended the Annual Bioethics conference at Notre Dame University. This was a superb conference. I had the opportunity to meet Catholic physicians and ethicists who are struggling to live their faith in a world where the Culture of Death plots to coerce medical personnel to act against conscience and directly cooperate in intrinsically evil acts. Also present at this conference were non-Catholic physicians and academics who also are struggling to be faithful to their Christian witness in our modern.

One of these was Lutheran scholar Gilbert Meilaender, Richard & Phyllis Duesenberg Professor of Christian Ethics at Valparaiso University. In a session discussing the recent directive from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Dignitatis Personae, Dr. Meilaender noted that the document made the following statements with regard to the possibility of embryo rescue for those excess embryos created during the process of In Vitro Fertilization:

12. With regard to the treatment of infertility, new medical techniques must respect three fundamental goods: a) the right to life and to physical integrity of every human being from conception to natural death; b) the unity of marriage, which means reciprocal respect for the right within marriage to become a father or mother only together with the other spouse;19 c) the specifically human values of sexuality which require “that the procreation of a human person be brought about as the fruit of the conjugal act specific to the love between spouses”.20 Techniques which assist procreation “are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life”.21 In light of this principle, all techniques of heterologous artificial fertilization,22 as well as those techniques of homologous artificial fertilization 23 which substitute for the conjugal act, are to be excluded. On the other hand, techniques which act as an aid to the conjugal act and its fertility are permitted...

19. With regard to the large number of frozen embryos already in existence the question becomes: what to do with them? Some of those who pose this question do not grasp its ethical nature, motivated as they are by laws in some countries that require cryopreservation centers to empty their storage tanks periodically. Others, however, are aware that a grave injustice has been perpetrated and wonder how best to respond to the duty of resolving it...

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood...

19 Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Instruction Donum Vitae, II, A, 1: AAS 80 (1988), 87.

20 CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Instruction Donum vitae, II, B, 4: AAS 80 (1988), 92.

21 CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Instruction Donum vitae, Introduction, 3: AAS 80 (1988), 75.

22 The term heterologous artificial fertilization or procreation refers to “techniques used to obtain a humanconception artificially by the use of gametes coming from at least one donor other than the spouses who are joined in marriage” (Instruction Donum Vitae, II: AAS 80 [1988], 86).

23 The term homologous artificial fertilization or procreation refers to “the technique used to obtain a humanconception using the gametes of the two spouses joined in
marriage” (Instruction Donum Vitae, II: AAS 80 [1988], 86).

Dr. Meilaender noted that Dignitatis Personae (DP) merely affirms that the rescue of embryos is not ethically acceptable without giving an extended argument to justify this assertion. He mentioned the important distinction that Kirkegård made between a genius and an apostle: the former argues to make a rational case while the latter proclaims the word. In essence, Dr. Meilaender was acknowledging the difference between the merely human wisdom of the scholar and the prompting of the Holy Spirit such as we have in the Catholic Church's Magisterium.



But as a Lutheran, Dr. Meilaender really wanted more than someone who "taught as one that had authority, and not as the scribes" (Matthew 7:29, Mark 1:22). It seems that he was not satisfied with the explanation from paragraph 12 of this same document. It was not enough to convince him that embryo rescue was morally reprehensible.



Dr. Meilaender is not alone. In fact several moralists - Catholic and Non-Catholic - have wrestled with this question over the last decade . In all honesty before DP was published, I also had struggled with this question.


But based on my Catholic faith I was able to understand the issues involved and discern the rationale behind the prohibition of embryo rescue in a way that a non-Catholic really is not equipped to do.


It is one of the sad legacies of the so-called "reformation" that the sacramentality of Christian marriage was abandoned and replaced with a secular contractual theory in which divorce and remarriage were permitted. This was true in every branch of the so-called "reformation" even though divorce and remarriage had been directly forbidden in the Bible by Jesus and St. Paul and likewise forbidden universally in Christian Tradition .


Luther himself was notorious for his opinion that the sexual urge was "just an itch to scratch" and that "There is no need to burn with passion while willing maidens abound." He along with his cronies Melanchthon, OEclampadius, and Bugenhagen wrote papers justifying polygamy at the request of Philip of Hesse. Ulrich Zwingli was known for having affairs with women in his congregation and for frequenting prostitutes. Calvin was a staunch supporter of a bourgeois view of marriage as a human institution devised by God. Even so, he had no interest in marriage until put under pressure by his Protestant peers to marry as a sign of his break with "Romanism." Henry VIII was the most flagrant abuser of marriage among the scions of the so-called "reformation" marrying six women in his lifetime and taking many mistresses.


Despite all of this, the conventional wisdom is that the so-called "reformation" attempted to reform Christan marriage and return it to a central place among the Christian faithful. But this was not the case. Marriage was secularized and human sexuality de-sacralized. Despite Protestant protests to the contrary, the so-called "reformation" took a very mercenary and utilitarian view of sex and marriage. It likewise denigrated any form of consecrated celibacy or continence as unhealthy despite the teachings of Jesus (Matthew 19:12) and St. Paul (1Corinthians 7) to the contrary.


In historic Catholic Christianity, marriage has always been seen as a sacrament. As such, the Church has seen marriage as not merely a human institution but a divine one that like the sacraments of Baptism, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick. Marriage is a source of divine grace through Christ. In short, a sacramental marriage contributes to your salvation as means of grace.


To find the source of this teaching we need to go to the early chapters of Genesis . In Genesis 2:18, God sees that Adam is lonely in Eden. Out of love for the man, God created a woman Eve to be his helpmate. In this sense woman was the love of God for Man made flesh.


Marriage in Eden was God's divine gift. It was only after God had made them "male and female" (Gen 1:27) that he found the world to be not just "good" (Gen 1: 4, 10,12,18,21), but "very good" (Gen 1:31). Woman was the crown jewel of creation and marriage was the feast celebrated on the first Sabbath. That is why the Sabbath day was to be kept holy. On that day was celebrated the love of God for Man. That is why Jesus taught us that "The Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).


When the Devil tempted Eve to commit the original sin (Gen 3), he used her to get to her husband. From that point onward men and women were estranged. Immediately, our First Parents realized they were naked and were ashamed to be seen by each other. Adam blamed Eve for his sin (Gen 3:12). As part of her punishment, God made bearing children more painful and he said that woman would still desire her husband who would "lord it over" her (Gen 3:16).


Never again would man and woman see each other as helpmates. Never again would they treat each other with mutual respect. Man would physically intimidate women and treat them like chattel. A man's wife would be numbered among his slaves and his property (Exodus 20:17). The good gift of God's love made flesh was reduced to another commodity to be used, abused, and discarded at will. God's one concession to women in the law of Moses was that the men in his covenant would be obliged to give his wife a bill proving that she was divorced and thus free of him and free to marry again if anyone would have her.


Among the rabbis, women were looked upon as second class citizens. Rabbi Hillel taught that a man could divorce his wife for virtually any reason, even for merely burning his dinner.


But God reserved one promise for woman. He would put enmity between the Devil and the woman. Through her, god would bring about the destruction of all the Devil's plan for humanity. She would crush the serpent's head (Gen 3:15).


And so a virginal maiden named Mary (more correctly Miriam) was approached by an Archangel Luke 1:26-38) just as Eve had been approached by a fallen angel (Genesis 3). Through Mary's submission to the word of God, she bore Christ, our Savior, who was the fruit of her womb and whose flesh and blood would nourish us in the Eucharist. The process by which humanity fell was reversed.



During his ministry, Jesus revealed that the compromised form of marriage which God had permitted under Moses' "because of the hardness of your hearts" would no longer apply (Matthew 19:8). Marriage was returned by Jesus to what it was "in the beginning" (Matthew 19:4). Jesus as the New Adam was returning marriage to its Edenic Purity.



This fact is often overlooked by those who prefer either a hammartiocentric or a creation-centered scheme. The restoration of marriage by Jesus actually heals the rift caused by Original Sin between man and woman and by doing so, restores the symbolism of the human gender relationship as the sign of God's love for man made flesh. I have come to believe that this is the far more important in the economy of salvation than most theologians have recognized. Thankfully, the Church has always taught that marriage is a sacrament and fruitful reflection on this will allow us to discern the full significance of marriage.



But even more importantly, the stories from the Old Testament where "Yahweh is the husband of his people" (Hosea 2:16, Isaiah 54:5, Jeremiah 3:20) were now referred to Christ and the ultimate culmination of the work of Christ was seen as the wedding of Christ to his Church (Ephesians 5:31-32; Revelation 19:9, 21:9) . So marriage is the ultimate biblical metaphor for salvation, and not the forensic and transformation models that have predominated in modern theologies.

So to recap, marriage was a Divine institution that symbolized God's gracious loving care for man and was intended as a mutual bond between spouses of deep theological significance. As Jesus restored the nuptial bond from Eden, His Church has recognized it as a sacred rite in which the spouses are the ministers -- if you will, the priests -- who administer the grace-giving sacrament to each other and share it with other family members, especially their children. The pinnacle of marriage is the marital act itself. In light of the sacramental meaning of marriage, this is properly understood as a priestly act.

It is well known that Temples in the ancient world were seen as representing the human body. In fact, Jesus used a pun concerning his own body while ostensibly talking about the Temple in Jerusalem (John 2: 19-22).

St. Paul himself (1Corinthians 6:15-20) in discussing Christian sexual mores makes the point that are our bodies are members of Christ and temples of the Holy Spirit and that it is therefore unseemly -- in fact sacrilegious -- to fornicate with them. We give ourselves exclusively to our spouses and to no other.

The Christian husband is like the High Priest who alone is allowed to enter the Holy of Holies of his wife's body. In the Temple of Jerusalem, anyone other than the High Priest who tried to enter the Holy of Holies was to be put to death. Even the High Priest was only permitted to enter it on Yom Kippur under threat of death.

Seen in this way we can understand why the Blessed Virgin had to remain Perpetually Virgin. As it says in Ezekiel:

Eze 44:1 Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut.
Eze 44:2 And he said to me, "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.
Eze 44:3 Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way."

The Sanctuary of Mary's Body was consecrated to God and to his Christ. It could not be entered by any other man without sacrilege.

Once we realize this, we have the reason why 'embryo rescue' is not ethically acceptable. No one but the husband is permitted to enter the sanctuary of his wife's body. And no one other than the child who is the product of their marital act has any right to be there.

Those women who have a desire to offer their womb to rescue an embryo --even if that embryo is their own child by their husband -- are flying in the very face of God because they are allowing a non-marital act by a third party to violate the sanctity of the marital act.

In order for an embryo that is outside of a womb to be rescued -- even the womb of its rightful mother -- several morally abominable acts must have taken place:

-Collection of sperm
-Harvesting of ova
-Extra-Corporial Fetilization
-Extra-Corporial Embryo development
-Embryo Freezing
-Embryo Defrosting
-Embryo implantation

Those are seven potentially mortal sins.

In order to "rescue" one of these embryos, a volunteer surrogate mother would need to be willfully complicit in 2 seriously disordered acts that are potentially mortal sins.

Human genitalia, human gametes and the marital act which unites them are all sacred are not open to mundane secular use. While the desire to rescue an embryo appears laudable, it is an act of willful human interference in the sacred order established by God. to cooperate in this would be a sacrilege and is therefore not not morally permissible.

The horror of this whole problem is that it places us in a moral conundrum where there is no clear morally acceptable solution. To rescue the embryo is just as evil as to let them die. At this time the Church has not discerned what can be done, if anything ,to put an end to this moral dilemma.

Once again we see that when man tries to create a good for himself that ignores, defies or tries to supersede the good that God has made, it takes us into moral ruin.

I hope this brief article helps to explain why the Catholic Church takes the stand that she has on this issue.

Arthur C. Sippo MD, MPH