Benedict and Luther agree, at least...

Would people think more of the Catholic Church if she were to deny her link with the God-man Jesus and pretend that she is just the same as churches founded by weak men like Martin Luther and King Henry VIII? Not likely. That would also mean denying her divine Founder and her whole reason for existence. No other church has the guarantee that it will always teach the truth. No other church has seven sacraments, seven channels of God's grace, to help us get to Heaven. No other church, except the Orthodox Church (which lacks full communion with the Bishop of Rome), has the Holy Eucharist, the actual Body and Blood of Christ Himself, without which Jesus said we cannot get to Heaven… That is why it is essential for Catholics to go to Mass every week; it's the only place one can receive the spiritual food necessary to get to Heaven… -The Wanderer, August 16, 2007

(Tim) The Wanderer is an orthodox Roman Catholic weekly newspaper published since 1867 in St. Paul, Minnesota. Back in 1980, I was given a six month gift subscription by my dear friend, Jon Archibald. I found the paper so helpful on social, cultural, political, economic, academic, and moral issues that I’ve subscribed now for twenty-seven years. Although Touchstone magazine places a close second, The Wanderer still holds first place as the best news source for the national and international battle on fronts such as sodomy, the unborn, the libertarian movement, no-fault divorce, population control, China’s forced abortion and single child policies, the persecution of Christians, economics, just war principles applied to global conflicts, terrorism, the education of children, the academy, our two-party union shop, infanticide, euthanasia, etc. I’ve found no better news source for Christians pursuing our Lord’s command to be salt and light.

Yet there's another way The Wanderer is helpful. It reminds us of Rome's errors and the threat those errors pose to immortal souls. When so many evangelical luminaries have signed on to the nuanced ambiguities of Evangelicals and Catholics Together, we can be lulled to sleep and forget the chasm between Rome and biblical faith. But then, along comes The Wanderer providing a pitcher of cold water to the face, awakening us from our slumber.

Men whose observation of Roman Catholicism has been limited to the kinder gentler Catholicism of the northern hemisphere might have difficulty understanding why, at this late date, anyone would still consider Roman Catholicism to be opposed to biblical faith. David and I are currently serving as tutors to the men who matriculated this fall in our pastors college as they read Martin Luther’s commentary on Galatians. Luther got it right when he opposed the Judaizing heresy at the heart of Rome. Take this lengthy excerpt as one example, particularly noting what Luther says about Rome's schoolmen and the Pope...

I have plainly declared already, how great is the error of the school-divines, which have taught that a man thus obtaineth remission of sins and justification, namely, if by works going before, which they call merits of congruence, he deserve grace, which to them is a quality that cleaveth to the will, being given by God over and above that love which we have by our natural powers. When a man hath received this grace (say they), he is formally righteous and truly a Christian. This, I say, is an ungodly and pestilent opinion, for it maketh not a Christian, but a Turk, a Jew, an Anabaptist, a fantastical head, etc. For what man is there that would not be able by his own strength without grace to do a good work and in this way merit grace, etc.? After this manner have these dreamers made of faith an empty quality in the soul, which alone and without charity availeth nothing at all, but when charity is added thereto, it is effective and justifieth. And the works that do follow (say they) have power to merit eternal life of worthiness, since God for the sake of the charity which he hath infused into man’s will, doth accept the work following unto eternal life. For thus say they that God accepteth a good work unto eternal life, but an evil work he non-accepteth unto condemnation and eternal punishment. They have heard somewhat in a dream concerning acceptation, and then they have attributed this relation unto works. All these things are false and blasphemous against Christ.…

Contrary to these vain trifles and doting dreams (as we have also noted before) we teach faith, and give a true rule of Christianity in this sort: first, that a man must be taught by the law to know himself, that so he may learn to say with the prophet: “All have sinned and have need of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23); also, “There is not one righteous, no not one: not one that understandeth, not one that seeketh after God: all have gone astray” (Romans 3:10 ff.; Psalm 14:1 ff.; 53:1 ff.); also: “Against thee only have I sinned” (Psalm 51:4). Thus we by a contrary way do drive men from the merit of congruence and worthiness.

Now, when a man is humbled by the law, and brought to the knowledge of himself, then followeth true repentance (for true repentance beginneth at the fear and judgment of God), and he seeth himself to be so great a sinner that he can find no means how he may be delivered from his sin by his own strength, endeavour and works. Then he perceiveth well what Paul meaneth when he saith that man is the servant and bondslave of sin (Romans 7:14); also that God hath shut up all under sin (Romans 11:52; Galatians 3:22) and that the whole world is guilty before God (Romans 3:19). Then he seeth that all the divinity of the schoolmen touching the merit of congruence and worthiness, is nothing else but mere foolishness, and that by this means the whole Papacy falleth.

Here now he beginneth to sigh, and saith in this wise: Who then can give succour? For he being thus terrified with the law, utterly despaireth of his own strength: he looketh about, and sigheth for the help of a mediator and saviour. Here then cometh in good time the healthful word of the Gospel, and saith: “Son, thy sins are forgiven thee” (Matthew 9:2). Believe in Christ Jesus crucified for thy sins, etc. If thou feel thy sins and the burden thereof, look not upon them in thyself, but remember that they are translated and laid upon Christ, whose stripes have made thee whole (Isaiah 53:5).

This is the beginning of health and salvation. By this means we are delivered from sin, justified and made inheritors of everlasting life; not for our own works and deserts, but for our faith, whereby we lay hold upon Christ. Wherefore we also do acknowledge a quality and a formal righteousness in the heart: not charity (as the sophisters do) but faith; and yet so notwithstanding, that the heart must behold and apprehend nothing but Christ the Saviour. And here it is necessary that you know the true definition of Christ. The schoolmen being utterly ignorant hereof, have made Christ a judge and a tormentor, devising this fond fancy concerning the merit of congruence and worthiness.…

Here is to be noted that these three things, faith, Christ, acceptation, or imputation, must be joined together. Faith taketh hold of Christ, and hath him present, and holdeth him inclosed, as the ring doth the precious stone. And whosoever shall be found having this confidence in Christ apprehended in the heart, him will God account for righteous. (A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 135-137.)

Was Luther right? And if he was right five centuries ago, is he still right today?

Richard John Neuhaus, Bill Bright, Mark Noll, Chuck Colson, Nathan Hatch, Pat Robertson, and J. I. Packer say "No." What say you?

Well, to awaken us from our slumber, here's a pitcher of cold water from The Wanderer's August 16, 2007 issue. It's taken from a column called "Catholic Replies" that provides answers to readers' theological questions.

QUESTION: Pope Benedict's statement that other Christian churches are not really churches and that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church seems rather harsh. I have even heard the word “arrogant” used. Can you explain what the Pope meant? --J.P.D., New York.

ANSWER: It would be arrogant for the Catholic Church to claim to be the one, true Church only if that claim were false. But if that claim is true, then the Church has an obligation to make that truth known to all since it bears on the eternal salvation of all. This claim is nothing that the Church hasn't been saying for centuries, most recently in Vatican II's documents on the Church (Lumen Gentium) and on ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), in Pope John Paul II's encyclicals Redemptoris Missio and Ut Unum Sint, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and in the document Dominus Iesus, which was issued in 2000 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

In the document that caused the latest uproar (Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of Pope Benedict, reaffirmed that the Church founded by Christ “ 'subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him'.” It explained that subsists was used instead of is to show “the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church,” while at the same time indicating that there are “ 'numerous elements of sanctification and of truth'” in the separated Christian communities that can lead them to the Catholic Church. These elements include such things as the written word of God and persons who live lives of grace, faith, hope, and charity.

It is possible, the document said, “to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word subsists can be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we possess in the symbols of the faith (I believe in the 'one' Church); and this 'one' Church subsists in the Catholic Church.”

The other controversial statement was that these separated communities cannot rightly be called churches in the proper sense of the word. This is so, said the congregation in a commentary on the document because these communities “ 'have not preserved the apostolic succession or the valid celebration of the Eucharist'.” It is “difficult to see how the title of 'church' could possibly be attributed to them,” the commentary said, “given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church.”

In summary, said the commentary: “Although the Catholic Church has the fullness of the means of salvation, 'nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from effecting the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her children who, though joined to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her.' The fullness of the Catholic Church, therefore, already exists, but still has to grow in the brethren who are not yet in full communion with it and also in its own members who are sinners 'until it happily arrives at the fullness of glory in the heavenly Jerusalem'.”

We know that these claims sound harsh in these days when no one is supposed to take a principled stand, unless it's against smoking or the war in Iraq. But the bottom line is that Jesus is God and history proves that He started a Church to carry on His work in the world. History also shows that the Church He started is the Catholic Church. It was John Henry Cardinal Newman, a convert from Anglicanism, who said that to be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant.

In other words, if you know the history of Christianity, you know that the only Christian Church in the world until the 11th century (when the Orthodox Church was formed) was the Catholic Church, and that Protestantism didn't come into existence until the 16th century. Jesus said that He would be with His Church always and that it would last until the end of time. So any Church that did not exist until 1,000 or 1,500 years after Christ can't be His Church. Only Catholicism can trace its roots back to Christ, and it would be wrong for the Church to deny that it is the true Church founded by God Himself.

Would people think more of the Catholic Church if she were to deny her link with the God-man Jesus and pretend that she is just the same as churches founded by weak men like Martin Luther and King Henry VIII? Not likely. That would also mean denying her divine Founder and her whole reason for existence. No other church has the guarantee that it will always teach the truth. No other church has seven sacraments, seven channels of God's grace, to help us get to Heaven. No other church, except the Orthodox Church (which lacks full communion with the Bishop of Rome), has the Holy Eucharist, the actual Body and Blood of Christ Himself, without which Jesus said we cannot get to Heaven (“Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on die last day”).

That applies of course only to those who know that Jesus is truly present in the Holy Eucharist, not to those who are ignorant or disbelieving of this. That is why it is essential for Catholics to go to Mass every week; it's the only place one can receive the spiritual food necessary to get to Heaven (“Whoever eats my Flesh and drinks my Blood remains in me and I in him”).

If someone gives us a million-dollar lottery ticket, wouldn't we cash it in? Well, Jesus has given us something even more valuable, His own self. Not taking advantage of the opportunity every week (or even every day) to make Him a physical and spiritual part of our lives would be like keeping the lottery ticket in the drawer or throwing it away. Only when all Catholics again begin to appreciate the “pearl of great price” that Jesus has given us in His Church will the Church and the world begin to become a better place. If we don't put ourselves in God's house every week, and open our minds and hearts to His Word and to His actual Body and Blood, we cannot call ourselves faithful followers of His.

To be sure, other Christians think that they belong to the right church, but have they ever noticed that what was once a few Christian denominations is now tens of thousands of them? They keep disagreeing on doctrinal questions and forming new churches that support their belief system. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, still believes and still teaches what it has taught for 2,000 years. That kind of track record ought to mean something.

If one person says that two plus two is four, and someone else says that it's five, one of them is wrong. Both might sincerely believe that they are right, but objectively speaking, two contrary and opposite things cannot both be true at the same time. If someone says that Jesus is God and the Unitarians, for example, say that He isn't, someone is wrong, no matter how sincere both of them might be.

We were made by God to seek the truth, and that Truth is Jesus. We would be poor disciples of His if we denied or watered down the truth. Pope Benedict is just being a faithful disciple of the Lord (not to mention His Vicar on earth) when he reiterates that the way to Heaven is through Jesus and the Church He founded. In fact, he believes, as should we, that we have a duty to point out the path to Heaven to those around us. Not to help people get to Heaven when we are able to do so would be a sin of omission. Not to tell them the truth, which is Jesus Himself, would be a failure to love our neighbor. Naturally, we must do so in a charitable and respectful way, not by hectoring or harassing people, but we must do it.

There are a lot of people today who, if you asked them, would say that of course they believe in God. But they live as if God did not exist: They don't pray, they don't go to church, they live together before marriage, etc. They remind us of the sign outside a church: “If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” We're afraid that too many people today couldn't produce enough evidence in court to prove that they were followers of Christ. One certain piece of evidence would be active membership in the one, true Church founded by Jesus and presided over today by Pope Benedict XVI. (“Catholic Replies” in The Wanderer, August 16, 2007, p. 3.)

We must allow for differences of expression between men writing five centuries apart. And yet, it's apparent that Benedict and Luther understand one another quite well and that both believe the other is a destroyer of souls.

So let's ask the question once more: Is Luther right?

Richard John Neuhaus, Bill Bright, Mark Noll, Chuck Colson, Nathan Hatch, Pat Robertson, and J. I. Packer say "No."

Shepherd of souls, what say you?

Comments

[Mark Priestap]

Richard John Neuhaus, Bill Bright, Mark Noll, Chuck Colson, Nathan Hatch, Pat Robertson, and J. I. Packer say "No."

Galatians 1:8,9: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Luther was SO right on.

Thank you dear brother for posting this.

[Dave Sarafolean]

As a native of St. Paul, Minnesota and one who grew up as a Roman Catholic, this post accurately reflects the church I know (and left).

Romans 10:1-3 "Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. I bear them witness that they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness."

Romans 9:3 "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen..."

[rob]

In any polarized controversy employing Aristotle's Logic and the law of the excluded middle, there is no doubt that one side is wrong, but there is yet one other possibility: both sides are wrong. The only excluded option is that both sides cannot be right. I'm not sure where Bill Bright, Mark Noll, Chuck Colson, Nathan Hatch, Pat Robertson, and J. I. Packer fall in this controversy, but since none of them converted to Catholicism, it would seem they have chosen the one logically untenable position. Which is a strange place for a Protestant to sleep.

[Mark Priestap]

@Dave Sarafolean

GREAT comment.

[Ross]

But there's an interesting issue here. The Catholics have the same problems we have, of people "picking and choosing" what they want to believe of the traditional Catholic faith. We are all too familiar with the pulpit saying one thing and the troops on the ground believing something quite different.

Here's the paradox we haven't explored, that what many individual Catholics believe at the margins is not what their church's magisterium teaches. In fact, at more than the margins. So, I have no problems with accepting *individual* Catholics as being justified by faith, even if their church, as a whole, has got it dreadfully wrong. It is this sort of Catholic which has muddied the waters, for their own church and its own "fundamentalists", as much as anything.

[dmm]

IMHO, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and many Protestant groups all make the same mistake: equating a human organization with Christ's Church, which consists of individual redeemed souls throughout history. The members of the true Church are known only to God and themselves, although by getting to know people well and observing their fruits we can make pretty accurate guesses. I'm not saying that human organizations (churches, denominations, etc.) are bad. Of course not. They are all visible manifestations of the Church Invisible. Some do a better job than others at faithfully manifesting the Church. Some started out well and have declined. Some have become so perverted and corrupted that it is hard for me to believe they contain any members of the true Church. Regardless, every member of Christ's true Church (Christian) has a responsibility to link up with other Christians in a local church.

Although I think doctrine DOES matter, and I DO think that some churches are wrong in important areas, it is clearly taught in Scripture that even the angels are not to attempt to separate the wheat from the tares until the Day of Judgment. It seems to me that we have plenty of people to evangelize who are unequivocally outside of the Church, not to mention the many who profess Christ but have only the slimmest of connections to any church and are therefore likely also to be outside of the Church. Those two groups together must constitute at least 3/4 of the world's population. It seems pretty obvious where our efforts ought to be directed.

[Austin Sanders]

Is everyone posting just going to ignore the entire argument of the article. My faith (Roman Catholic) has the benefits of drawing dogma from both scripture AND tradition. The notion that any other faith can claim that is ludicrous seeing as how we were the only ones with a tradition for umm... over 1400 YEARS. Also, the doctrine of sola scriptura is pretty much one of the most uneducated and contradictory notions ever to infect christendom. If I were God (not that i'd be any good of course!) I'm pretty sure I would be letting someone know what the heck I wanted done. If the Holy Spirit was not actively inspiring men for 1400 years, why should He start with Martin Luther. Besides, shouldn't a real Religious belwether have a few more scruples than his contemporaries (yeah....I said it...Luther was just as lecherous and womanizing as the worst of his Catholic buddies back then). I prefer to side with the great Greek and Latin thinkers.

[Kamilla]

Austin,

My numerous Orthodox friends would beg to differ with you on who can properly lay claim to tradition. Quirky beings that they are, many of them view Rome as just another Protestant church.

Kamilla

[Tim Bayly]

Mr. Sanders has here repeated a slander against Martin Luther that Roman Catholics repeat regularly, although it's normal to hide it from Christians who aren't Roman Catholic.

I'm leaving the slander here so that Christians see this argument too, and are able to understand the lies Rome uses to keep her people subservient and giving money.

But to answer your question, Mr. Sanders, some arguments are so weak and impious as to cry out for a modest silence in response. It's enough for the opponents to know such things are not only thought, but said--indeed, even written! This is how we view the charade that souls improve their chances of escaping purgatory earlier, and moving up into Heaven, if they come to the church building every day and eat the literal body and drink the literal blood of our Lord at Mass.

You know, "No other church has the Holy Eucharist" and all that...