You are on page 1of 539

REFERENCES

..........................................................3

JESUS ES DIOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 THE HOLY TRINITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 SOUL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 PARTICULAR AND GENERAL (LAST) JUDGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 HEAVEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 HELL AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 JUSTIFICATION, GRACE AND SANCTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 JUSTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 SANCTIFYING GRACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 SALVATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 JUSTIFICATION IS A TRANSFORMATION AND A PROCESS AND NOT A FORENSIC DECLARATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 SALVATION IS NOT ONLY BY FAITH BUT WORKS ARE ALSO NEEDED (FAITH WORKING THROUGH LOVE)-THERE IS A REWARD FOR GOOD WORKS . . . 230 WHO HAS REAL FAITH? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED? NO, SALVATION CAN BE LOST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 WE MUST LIVE A HOLY LIFE BUT IF WE SIN, WE CAN BE FORGIVEN . . . . . . . . . . . 278 IN HIS LETTERS PAUL IS TALKING ABOUT THE LAW OF THE JEWS BEING USELESS AND PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE EXTERNAL ACTS (WORKS) OF THE LAW LIKE CIRCUMCISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 CHRIST FOUNDED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 PETER WAS THE FIRST POPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

EUCHARIST-REAL PRESENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 CONFESSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 PURGATORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 MARY WAS ALWAYS A VIRGIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453 THE BROTHERS OF JESUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456 LA FAMILIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464 WHERE THE BIBLE COMES FROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 THY KINGDOM COME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473 HE DESCENDED UNTO HELL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474 BAPTISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475 COMMUNION OF SAINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 MARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536

REFERENCES
http://home.columbus.rr.com/jimhaninger/concord1.htm CHURCH Mt 16:18-9 - upon this rock I will build my Church Mt 18:17-18 - if he refuses to listen even to Church ... Mt 28:18-20 - go baptize and teach all nations Mt 16:15-16 - go to whole world and proclaim gospel Lk 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me; rejects you, rejects me Jn 14:16,26 - Holy Spirit w/ you always, teach/remind everythg Jn 16:13 - Spirit of truth will guide you to all truth 1 Tim 3:15 - Church is the pillar & foundation of truth CHURCH IS BODY OF CHRIST Col 1:18 - he is the head of the body, the church 1 Cor 12:20-27 - you are Christ's body, individually parts of it Eph 5:30 - we are members of his body Rom 12:4-5 - though many, we are one body in Christ 1 Cor 6:15 - don't you know your bodies are members of Christ THE CHURCH MUST BE ONE Jn 10:16 - there shall be one fold and one shepherd Eph 4:3-6 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God & Father Rom 16:17 - avoid those who create dissensions 1 Cor 1:10 - I urge that there he no divisions among you Phil 2:2 - be of same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony w/ one another Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may be one, as we are one Jn 17:23 - that they may be brought to perfection as one 1 Cor 12:13 -in one spirit we were baptized into one body Rom 12:5 - we, though many, are one body in Christ Eph 4:4 - one body, one Spirit, called to one hope Col 3:15 - the peace into which you were called in one body St. Cyprian (c. 250 AD): "God is one and Christ is one, and one is His Church, and the faith is one, and His people welded together by the glue of concord into a solid unity of body. Unity cannot be rent asunder, nor can the one body of the Church, through the division of its structure, be divided into separate pieces." On the Unity of the Church 23. Tertullian (197 AD): "We are a society with a single religious feeling, a single unity of discipline,

a single bond of hope". Apology 39,1. St. Hillary (4th c.): "In the Scriptures our people are shown to be made one; so that just as many grains collected into one and ground and mingled together, make one loaf, so in Christ, who is the heavenly Bread, we know there is one body, in which our whole company in joined and united." Treatise 62, 13. APOSTOLIC CHURCH Jn 15:16 - Jesus chose special men to be his Apostles Jn 20:21 - Jesus gave the Apostles his own mission Lk 20:29-30 - Jesus gave them a kingdom Mt 16:18 - Jesus built Church on Peter, the rock Jn 10:16 - one shepherd to shepherd Christ's sheep Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17- Peter appointed to be chief shepherd Eph 4:11 - church leaders are hierarchical 1 Tim 3:1,8 ; 5:17 - identifies roles of bishops, priests, deacons Tit 1:5 - commission for bishops to ordain priests AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH Mt 28:18 - Jesus delegates all power to Apostles Jn 20:23 - power to forgive sin 1 Cor 11:23-24 - power to offer sacrifice (Eucharist) Lk 10:16 - power to speak with Christ's voice Mt 18:18 - power to legislate Mt 18:17 - power to discipline St. Irenaeus (c. 200 AD): "...the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth." Against Heresies 1, Eusibius of Caesarea (4th c.): "But the brightness of the Catholic Church proceeded to increase in greatness, for it ever held to the same points in the same way, and radiated forth to all the race of Greeks and barbarians the reverent, sincere, and free nature, and the sobriety and purity of the divine teaching as to conduct and thought." Ecclesiastical History 4, 7, 13. St. Augustine (392 AD): "The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints .... When, then, we see so much help on God's part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the apostolic chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority." The Advantage of Believing 35. INFALLIBLE CHURCH

Jn 16:13 - guided by Holy Spirit into all truth Jn 14:26 - Holy Spirit to teach & remind them of everything Lk 10:16 - speak with Christ's own voice 1 Tim 3:15 - church called "pillar and foundation of truth" 1 Jn 2:27 - anointing of Holy Spirit remains in you Act 15:28 - Apostles speak with voice of Holy Spirit Mt 28:20 - I am with you always St. Irenaeus (c. 200): "For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God, there the Church and every grace. The Spirit, however, is Truth." Against Heresies 3, 24, 1 PERPETUAL CHURCH Is 9:6-7 - of Christ's government there will be no end Dan 2:44 - God's kingdom shall stand forever Dan 7:14 - his kingdom shall not be destroyed Lk 1:32, 33 - no end to Christ's kingdom Mt 7:24 - Jesus is like a wise man who built his house on a rock Mt 13:24-30 - let wheat & weeds grow together until harvest Mt 16:18 - gates of hell will never prevail against Christ's church Jn 14:16 - Holy Spirit will be with you always Mt 28:19-20 - I am with you all days PRIMACY OF PETER Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church Mt 16:19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose Lk 22:32 - Peter's faith will strengthen his brethren Jn 21:17 - given Christ's flock as chief shepherd Mk 16:7- angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost Acts 2:41 - received first converts Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into church Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle *Gal 2:11-14 - I opposed Cephas to his face, for his hypocrisy Peter's name always heads list of Apostles: Mk 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19 Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13 "Peter and his companions" - Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7 Spoke for Apostles-Mt 8:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45, 12:41; Jn 6:69

Peter's name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION 2 Chr 19:11 - high priest is over you in everything of Lord's Mal 2:7 - seek instruction from priest, he is God's messenger Eph 2:20 - church built upon foundation of apostles & prophets Eph 4:11 - God gave some as apostles, others as prophets ... 1 Cor 12:28-29 - God designated in church: apostles,... Acts 1:20 - let another take his office Acts 1:25-26 - Matthias takes Judas' apostolic ministry 1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - qualifications for: bishops, priests, & deacons 1 Tim 4:14 - gift conferred with the laying on of hands 1 Tim 5:22 - do not lay hands too readily on anyone Acts 14:23 - they appointed presbyters in each church 2 Tim 2:2 - what you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers Titus 1:5 - appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST Jn 6:35-71 - Eucharist promised Mt 26:26ff (Mk 14:22ff., Lk 22:17ff.) - Eucharist instituted 1 Cor 10:16 - Eucharist=participation in Christ's body &blood 1 Cor 11:23-29 - receiving unworthily=guilty of his body &blood Ex 12:8, 46 - Paschal lamb had to be eaten Jn 1:29 - Jesus called "Lamb of God" 1 Cor 5:7 - Jesus called "paschal lamb who has been sacrificed" Jn 4:31-34; Mt 16:5-12 - Jesus talking symbolically about food 1 Cor 2:14-3:4 - explains what "the flesh" means in *Jn 6:63 Ps 14:4; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Mic 3:3; 2 Sm 23:15-17; Rv 17:6, 16 - to symbolically eat & drink one's body & blood=assault St. Ignatius (110 AD): "[heretics] abstain from Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ ...." Letter to Smyrnaeans 6, 2. St. Justin Martyr (150 AD): "...not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but ... as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh in nourished, is both the Flesh and Blood of that incarnated Jesus." First Apology 66, 20. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (195 AD): "He (Jesus) has declared the cup, a part of his creation, to be His own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies." Against Heresies 5, 2, 2. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (350 AD): "He himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, 'This is My Body,' who will dare any longer to doubt? And when He Himself has affirmed and said, 'This is My Blood,' who can ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood?" Catechetical Lectures: Mystagogic 4, 22, 1. St. Cyril again: "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master's declaration, the Body

and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ." ibid. 4, 22, 6. BIBLE ALONE OR BIBLE PLUS TRADITION? 1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you 2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter 2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition J Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won't Acts 20:35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels 2 Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth 2 Tim 2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men 2 Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation 2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul's letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret 1 Pet 1:25 - God's eternal word=word preached to you Rom 10:17 - faith comes from what is heard 1 Cor 15:1-2 - being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached Mk 16:15 - go to whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature Mt 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you St. Athanasius (360 AD): "let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian .... "Four Letters to Serapion of Thmius 1, 28. Origen (c. 230 AD) "The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition." Fundamental Doctrines 1, preface, 2. TRADITION CONDEMNED? *Mt 15:3 - break commandment of God for your tradition *Mk 7:9 - set aside God's commandment. to uphold tradition *Col 2:8 - seductive philosophy according to human tradition 1 Cor 11:2 - commends them for following Apostolic tradition 2 Thess 2:15 -commands them to keep traditions 2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition FAITH ALONE OR FAITH PLUS WORKS? Jam 2:24 - a man is justified by works and not by faith alone Jam 2:26 - faith without works is dead Gal 5:6 - only thing that counts is faith working in love 1 Co 13:2 - faith without love is nothing

Jn 14:15 - if you love me, keep my commandments Mt 19:16-17 - if wish to enter into life, keep commandments HAVE YOU BEEN SAVED? Past Event (I have been saved) Rom 8:24 - for in hope we were saved Eph 2:5, 8 - by grace you have been saved through faith 2 Tim 1:9 - he saved us, called us, according to his grace Tit 3:5 - he saved us thru bath of rebirth, renewal by Holy Spirit Present Process (I am being saved) Phil 2:12- work out your salvation with fear and trembling 1 Pet 1:9- as you attain the goal of your faith, salvation Future Event (I will be saved) Mt 10:22 - he who endures to the end will be saved Mt 24:13 - he who perseveres to the end will be saved Mk 8:35 - whoever loses his life for my sake will save it Acts 15:11 - we shall be saved through the grace of Jesus Rom 5:9-10 - since we are justified, we shall be saved Rom 13:11 -salvation is nearer now than first believed 1 Cor 3:15 - he will be saved, but only as through fire 1 Cor 5:5 - deliver man to Satan so his spirit may be saved Heb 9:28 - Jesus will appear second time, to bring salvation GOOD WORKS Mt 7:21 - not lord lord, but he who does the will of father Mt 19:16- 17 - to have life, keep the commandments Jn 14:21 - he who keeps my commandments loves me Rom 2:2-8 - eternal life by perseverance in good works Gal 5:4-6 - nothing counts but faith working through love Eph 2:8-10 - we are created in Christ Jesus for good works Phil 2:12-13 - work out salvation with fear and trembling Jam 2:14-24 - a man is justified by works & not faith alone JUDGED ACCORDING TO DEEDS Rom 2:5-8 - God will repay each man according to his works 2 Cor 5:10 - recompense accord to what did in body 2 Cor 11:15 - their end will correspond to their deeds 1 Pet 1:17 - God judges impartially according to one's works Rev 20:12-13 - dead judged according to their deeds Col 3:24-25 - will receive due payment for whatever you do ASSURANCE OF SALVATION?

Mt 7:21 - not everyone saying "Lord, Lord" will inherit Mt 24:13 - those who persevere to the end will be saved Rom 11:22 - remain in his kindness or you will be cut off Phil 2:12 - work out your salvation in fear and trembling 1 Cor 9:27 - drive body for fear of being disqualified 1 Cor 10:11-12 - those thinking they are secure, may fall Gal 5:4 - separated from Christ, you've fallen from grace 2 Tim 2:11-13 - must hold out to end to reign with Christ Heb 6:4-6- describes sharers in Holy Spirit who then fall away Heb 10:26-27 - if sin after receiving truth, judgement remains REGENERATIVE BAPTISM Jn 3:5, 22 - born of water & Spirit; Apostles begin baptizing Tit 3:5 - saved us thru bath of rebirth & renewal by Holy Spirit Act 2:37-38 - repent, be baptized, receive gift of Holy Spirit Acts 22:16 - get selves baptized and sins washed away 1 Cor 6:11 -you were washed, sanctified, justified Rom 6:4 - baptized into death; live in newness of life 1 Pet 3:21 - baptism ... now saves you Heb 10:22 - heart sprinkled, bodies washed in pure water HEALTH AND WEALTH GOSPEL? Mt 10:38 - no "take cross and follow me" = not worthy of me Rom 8:16-17 - heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him Rom 8:18 - present suffering nothing compared w/ future glory Phil 1:28-29 - granted to believe, also to suffer for him Col 1:24 - filling up what is lacking in Christ sufferings Heb 12:5-7 - whom God loves, he disciplines as sons Heb 12:11 - discipline seems painful, but brings righteousness 1 Pet 1:6 -for a while you must suffer various trials 1 Pet 2:19-21 - suffering=grace; Jesus suffered as our example DIVINITY OF JESUS Jn 1:1 - the Word was God Jn 1:14-15 - glory of Father's only Son, full of grace and truth Jn 8:19- if you knew me, you would know my Father Jn 8:58-59 - I assure you, before Abraham was, I AM Jn 10:30-33 - the Father and I are one (See Ex 3:14, 20:7 , Lev 19:12 , Lev 24:14-16) Jn 10:38- the father is in me and I am in the Father Jn 12:45 - whoever sees me sees the one who sent me Jn 14:8-12- whoever has seen has seen the Father Jn 20:28 - Jesus accepts Thomas's "my Lord and my God"

Col 2:9 - in him dwells whole fullness of deity bodily Acts 20:28 - church of God he acquired w/ his blood Eph 1:7- in him we have redemption by his blood 1 Jn 1:17 - blood of his Son Jesus cleanses from all sin Tit 2:13 - glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ TIME OF SECOND COMING UNKNOWN Mt 24:44 - be prepared, Jesus coming at unexpected hour Mt 25:13 - stay awake, you know neither the day nor hour Mk 13:35-37- watch, unknown when lord of house coming Lk 12:46 - master will come at unexpected day and hour 1 Thess 5:2-3 - day of Lord will come like thief in night 2 Pet 3:9-10 - day of Lord will come like a thief Rev 3:3 - if not watchful, will come like a thief Mt 24:36 - no one but Father alone knows day and hour HOLY SPIRIT A PERSON, NOT A FORCE Jn 14:26 - "he will teach you all things" Acts 8:29 - "And the Spirit said to Philip, 'Go up...' Acts 13:2 - "Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me ... "' Rom 8:27 - "Spirit intercedes for the saints ..." 1 Cor 2:11 - no one understands thoughts of God, but Spirit 1 Cor 12:11 - Spirit apportions to each as he wills Eph 4:30 - "do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God,..." MARY Lk 1:28, 30 - angel: "full of grace, found favor with God" Lk 1:42- Elizabeth: "most blessed among women" Lk 1;48- Mary: "all generations will call me blessed" Mother of God Lk 1:43- Elizabeth call her "mother of my Lord"mod Mt 1:23 -virgin bear a son, Emmanuel = "God is with us" Lk 1:35 - child born will be called holy, the Son of God Gal 4:4 - God sent his Son, born of a woman Assumption Gn 5:24(Hb 11:5) - Enoch taken to heaven without dying 2 Kg 2:11 - Elijah assumed into heaven in fiery chariot Mt 27:52 - many saints who had fallen asleep were raised 1 Thess 4:17 - caught up to meet the Lord in the air 1 Cor 15;52 - we shall be instantly changed at last trumpet Rom 6:23 - for the wages of sin is death Rev 11:19-12:1 ark in heaven = woman clothed with sun

Immaculate Conception Lk 1:28 - hail full of grace [highly favored] Lord is with you Lk 1:30 - you have found favor with God Lk 1:37 - for with God nothing shall be impossible Gn 3:15 - complete enmity between/ woman & Satan, sin Ex 25:11-21 - ark made of purest gold for God's word *Rom 3:23 - all have sinned & are deprived of God's glory *Lk 1:47 - my spirit rejoices in God my savior Perpetual Virginity Lk 1:34 - how can this be, since I do not know man Lk 2:41-51 - age 12, Jesus evidently only son of Mary Mk 6:3 - "the son of Mary" not "a son of Mary" *Mt 13:55-56 - brothers James, Joseph, Simon & Jude Mt 27:56 - Mary the mother of James & Joseph is also Jn 19:25 - Mary the wife of Clopas Jn 19:26 - entrusted Mary to John, not a younger sibling Jn 7:3-4 - brothers advise like elders: "go to Judea, manifest self unthinkable for younger siblings (see next verse) Mk 3:21 - set out to seize him, "he is out of his mind" *Mt 1:25 - Joseph knew her not until she bore first-born' Mt 28:20 - I am with you always, until end of age 1 Tim 4:13 - until I arrive, attend to reading, teaching ... 1 Cor 15:25 - he must reign until has enemies underfoot Lk 1:80 - John in desert until day of his manifestation Ex 13:2; Nb 3:12 - consecrate first-born that opens womb Ex 34:20 - first-born among your sons you shall redeem REPETITIOUS PRAYER *Mt 6:7 - do not babble like pagans with their many words 1 Kgs 18:25-29 - example of vain repetition: call Baal for hours Mt 26:24 - Jesus prayed a third time, saying same thing again Lk 18:13 - collector kept beating breast & praying: be merciful Rev 4:8 - repeat day & night, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord" 1 Thess 5:17 - pray without ceasing CALL NO MAN FATHER? (*Mt 23;9) Acts 7:2 - St. Stephen calls Jewish leaders "fathers" Acts 21:40, Acts 22:1 - St. Paul calls Jerusalem Jews "fathers" Rom 4:16-17 - Abraham called "the father of us all" 1 Cor 4:14-15 - I became your father in Christ thru gospel 1 Tim 1:2 - my true child in the faith Tit 1:4 - my true child in our common faith Heb 12:7-9 - we have earthly fathers to discipline us

Lk 14:26 - if anyone comes to me w/o hating his father ... 1 Thess 2:11 - we treated you as a father treats his children Philem 10 - whose father I became in my imprisonment 1 Jn 2:13, 14 - I write to you, fathers, because you know him SCANDALS IN THE CHURCH Jer 32:32-35 - OT leaders & priests offered child sacrifices 2 Kgs 23:7 - OT cult prostitutes in the temple of the Lord Jn 4:22 - in spite of their infidelity, salvation is from Jews Mk 14:43-46 - Judas betrayed Jesus Mk 14:66-72 - Peter denied him Jn 20:24-25 - Thomas refused to believe his resurrection Mk 14:50 - Mk 14:50 - they all left him and fled in garden of Gethsemane Rom 3:3-4 - will their infidelity nullify fidelity of God? No! 2 Tim 2:13 - if we are unfaithful, God remains faithful Mt 13:24-30 - parable of the weeds among the wheat Mt 13:47-48 - parable of net that collects good and bad CELIBACY *1 Tim 4:1-3 - forbidding marriage is a doctrine of demons * 1 Tim 3:2 - bishop must be married only once Eph 5:21-33 - marriage is good: holy symbol of Christ & church Mt 19:12 - celibacy praised by Jesus, who was celibate Jer 16:1-4 - Jeremiah told not to take wife & have children 1 Cor 7:8 - St. Paul was celibate 1 Cor 7:32-35 - celibacy recommended for full-time ministers 2 Tim 2:3-4 - no soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits 1 Tim 5:9-12 - pledge of celibacy taken by older widows FASTING (*1 Tim 4:3) Mk 7:19 - Christ declared all foods clean 1 Tim 4:4-5 - everything created by God is good Dan 10:3 - Daniel refused to eat choice foods for 3 weeks Mt 9:15 - Christ's followers will fast once he is gone Mt 6:16-18 - Jesus gave regulations concerning how to fast PURGATORY Mt 5:48 - be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect Heb 12:14 - strive for that holiness w/o which cannot see God Jam 3:2 - we all fall short in many respects Rev 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven

1 Jn 5:16-17 - degrees of sins distinguished Jam 1:14-15 - when sin reaches maturity gives birth to death 2 Sam 12:13-14 - David, though forgiven, still punished for sin Mt 5:26 - you will not be released until paid last penny Mt 12:32 - sin against Holy Spirit unforgiven in this age or next Mt 12:36 - account for every idle word on judgment day 2 Macc 12:44-46 - atoned for dead to free them from sin 1 Cor 3:15 - suffer loss, but saved as through fire 1 Pet 3:18-20; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in prison 2 Tim 1:16-18 - Paul prays for dead friend Onesiphoros 1 Cor 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people baptizing for the dead HELL Is 33:11, 14 - who of us can live with the everlasting flames Mt 25:41 - depart, you accursed, into the eternal fire Mt 25:46 - these will go off to eternal punishment Lk 3:16-17 - the chaff he will burn in unquenchable fire 2 Thess 1:6-9 - these will pay the penalty of eternal ruin ORIGINAL SIN Gn 2:16-17 - the day you eat of that tree, you shall die Gn 3:11-19 - God's punishment for eating of the tree Rom 5:12-19 - many became sinners through one man's sin 1 Cor 15:21-23 - by a man came death; in Adam all die Eph 2:1-3 - we all once lived in the passions of our flesh INFANT BAPTISM Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16 - baptism required for entering heaven 1 Cor 15:21-22 - in Adam all die, in Christ all made alive Mk 10:14 - let children come; to such belongs the kingdom Lk 18:15 - people were bringing even infants to him ... Col 2:11-12 baptism has replaced circumcision Jos 24:15 - as for me and my house, we will serve Lord Mt 8:5ff - servant healed because of centurion's faith Mt 15:21ff - daughter healed b/c of Canaanite woman's faith Lk 7:1 f. -just say the word, and let my servant be healed Acts 16:31 - believe in Lord Jesus you & house will be saved Acts16:15 - she was baptized, with all her household Acts 16:33 - he and all his family were baptized at once 1 Cor 1:16 - I baptized the household of Stephanas St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 215 AD): "Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them." The

Apostolic Tradition 21. Origen (post 244 AD): "the Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants." Commentary on Romans 5, 9. Jn 252 ad, the council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants must wait until the eighth day after birth to be baptized, as was the case with circumcision. St Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 64 (59), 2. CONFIRMATION Acts 19:5-6 -Paul imposed hands on baptized, received H. Spirit Acts 8:14-17 - laid hands upon them, they received Holy Spirit 2 Cor 1:21-22 - put seal on us & given Holy Spirit in our hearts Eph 1:13 - you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit Heb 6:2 - instruction about baptism & laying on of hands CONFESSION Mt 9:2-8 - Son of Man has authority to forgive sins Jn 20:23 - whose sins you forgive/retain are forgiven/retained Jn 20:22 - breathed on them, "receive Holy Spirit" [recall Gn 2:7] 2 Cor 5:17-20 - given us the ministry of reconciliation James 5:13-15 - prayer of presbyters forgives sin Jam 5:16 - confess your sins to one another Mt 18:18-whatever you bind & loose on earth, so it is in heaven 1 Jn 5:16 - there is sin that is not deadly ANOINTING THE SICK Mk 6:12-13 - anointed with oil many sick, cured them Jam 5:14-15 - presbyters pray over sick, anoint, sins forgiven HOLY ORDERS Acts 20:28 - HS appointed you overseers, to tend church Lk 22:19 - do this in memory of me Jn 20:22 - As Father sent me, I send you... receive HS Acts 6:6 - the apostles prayed and laid hands on them Acts 13:3 - they laid hands on them & sent them off Acts 14:22 - they appointed presbyters in each church 1 Tim 4:14 - gift received thru laying on of hands of Presbyterate 2 Tim 1:6 - gift of God you have thru imposition of hands Tit 1:5 - appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you MATRIMONY Mt 19:5-6 - leave father & mother, join wife; 2 become 1 flesh

Mk 10:7-12 - what God joined together, no man separate Eph 5:22-32 - union of man & wife image of Christ & Church Heb 13:4 - let marriage be honored among all DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE Mal 2:14-16 - for I hate divorce, says the Lord Mt 5:32-33 - to divorce or marry divorced wife is adultery Mt 19:4-6, 9 - to divorce wife and remarry is adultery Mk 10:11-12 - if either divorces and remarries=adultery Lk 16:18 - to divorce & remarry or marry divorced=adultery Rom 7:2-3 -wife consorts=adulteress if living, but not if dead 1 Cor 7:10-11 - if wife separates, stay single or reconcile CONTRACEPTION Gn 1:27-28 (Gn 9:1; 35:11) - be fruitful and multiply Ps 127:35 - children gift from God, blessed is a full quiver 1 Chr 25:5 - God gave 14 sons & 3 daughters to exalt him 1 Chr 26:4-5 - God indeed blessed Obed-edom with 8 sons Hos 9:10-17 - Israel is punished with childlessness Ex 23:25-26 - blessings promised: no miscarrying, barrenness Dt 7:13-14 - you will be blessed: no male or female barrenness Gn 38:9-10 - Onan killed for spilling his seed on ground Dt 25:5-10 - penalty for defying Levitate law: not death Lv 20:13 - if man lies with man, put to death (wasting seed) Note: no penalty prescribed for lesbian actions or relations between single man & single woman (Dt 22:28-29) Lv 20:15 - if man lies with animal, put to death (sterile sex) Lv 20:16 - woman lies with animal, put to death (sterile sex) Lv 21:17-20 - crushed testicles is called a defect & blemish Dt 23:1 - no one who is castrated shall enter the assembly Dt 25:11-12 - punishment for potential damage to genitals Rom 1:25-27 - natural function of women (-childbearing) 1 Tim 2:11-15 - women saved thro the hearing of children Act 5:1-11 - Ananias/Saphirs slain-withholding part of gift Gal 6:7 - God is not mocked-accepting pleasure, denying fruit Mt 21:19, Mk 11:14 - Jesus cursed fruitless fig tree Gal 5:20 ,Rv 9:21,21:8 - Greek pharmakeia=abortifacient potions 1 Cor 6:19-20 - body temple of HS, glorify God in body HOMOSEXUALITY Gn 1:27- complementariry of sexes reflects God's inner unity Gn 2:21-24 - transmission of life thru total self donation-1 flesh

Gn 19 - original sin deteriorates to Sodom's sin, destroyed Lv 18:22 - called abomination, cut off from people (v.29) Lv 20:13 - both shall be put to death for abominable deed Rom 1:27 - called unnatural, shameful, and a perversity 1 Cor 6:9 - active homosexuals won't inherit kingdom of God 1 Tim 1:9-10 - those who engage in such acts called "sinners" DRINKING WINE Gn 27:25 - Isaac brought Jacob wine, and he drank Dt 14:23-26 - spend money on sheep, wine, & strong drink Prov 20:1 -wine is a mocker, unwise to be led astray by it Eccl 9:7 - drink your wine with merry heart - God approves Is 25:6 - God will provide feast of rich foods & choice wines Is 5:11 - woe to those rise early & run after strong drink Is 5:22 - woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine Lk 7:33-34 - Son of Man eats & drinks: behold glutton & drunk Jn 2:2-10 - miracle at Cana: water turned into good wine Eph 5:18 - do not get drunk with wine, that is debauchery 1 Tim 5:23 - drink a little wine for the sake of your stomach COMMUNION OF SAINTS Eph 1:22-23 - he is head of the church, which is his body Eph 5:21-32 - Christ is head of church, savior of the body Col 1:18, 24 - he is the head of the body, the church 1 Cor 12:12-27 - if 1 suffers, all suffer; if 1 honored, all rejoice Rom 12:5 - we are 1 body in Christ, indiv. parts of one another Eph 4:4 - one body, one Spirit, called to one hope Col 3:15 - you were called in one body Rom 8:35-39 - death cannot separate us from Christ Rom 12:10 - love one another with mutual affection 1 Thess 5:11 - encourage, build up one another Gal 6:2 - bear one another's burdens Gal 6:10 - let us do good to all, esp. those in family of faith INTERCESSORY PRAYER TO SAINTS Rom 15:30 join me by your prayers to God on my behalf Col 4:3; 1 Thess 5:25 - pray for us 2 Thess 1:11 - we always pray for you 2 Thess 3:1 - finally, brothers, pray for us Eph 6:18-19 - making supplication for all the saints & for me Tob 12:12 - angel presents Tobit & Sarah's prayer to God Rev 5:8 - angel offers prayers of the holy ones to God

*Saints dead, prayer is necromancy (Dt 18:10-11) Mk 12:26-27 - he is God of the living, not of the dead Mk 9:4 - Jesus seen conversing with Elijah and Moses Lk 23:43 - this day you will be with me in paradise Rev 6:9-11 - martyrs under altar want earthly vindication Heb 12:1 - we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses Lk 16:19-30 - departed rich man intercedes for brothers Rev 20:4 - saw the souls of those who had been beheaded Wis 3:1-6 - the souls of the just are in the hand of God *1 Tim 2:5 "One mediator between God and man" 1 Tim 2:1-7 - offer prayers, petitions for all men 1 Pet 2:5 - be a holy priesthood to offer sacrifices thru Christ Mk 10:18 - only God is good Mt 25:23 - well done my good and faithful servant Jn 10:11-16 - I am good shepherd; one flock, 1 shepherd Jn 21:15-16 - feed my lambs, tend my sheep Eph 4:11 - he gave some as apostles ... others as pastors Heb 3:1, 7:24, 9:12-13 - Jesus eternal high priest; one sacrifice Rev 1:6, 5:10 - he made us a kingdom of priests for God VENERATION OF SAINTS Jos 5:14 - Joshua fell prostrate in worship before angel Dan 8:17 - Daniel fell prostrate in terror before Gabriel Tob 12:16 - Tobiah & Tobit fall to ground before Raphael Mt 18:10 - angels in heaven always behold face of God (we venerate angels because of their great dignity, which comes from their union with God. Saints also united with God) 1 Jn 3:2 - we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is 1 Thess 1:5-8 - you became an example to all the believers Heb 13:7 - remember leaders, consider/imitate their faith & life RELICS 2 Kgs 13:20-21 - contact with Elisha's bones restored life Acts 5:15-16 - cures performed through Peter's shadow Acts 19:11-12 - cures through face cloths that touched Paul STATUES *Ex 20:4-5 - do not make and worship any graven images Ex 25:18-19 - make two cherubim of beaten gold Num 21:8-9 - Moses made bronze serpent & put on pole 1 Kgs 6:23-29 - temple had engraved cherubim, trees, flowers 1 Kgs 7:25-45 - temple had bronze oxen, lions, pomegranates

------------------------------------

Baptism Acts 2:38-39: "Repent and be baptized" Rom 6:1-4, 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal 3:27, Col 2:12 baptized into Christ. 1 Pet 3:19-21 "baptism now saves you". Heb. 10:22 ...hearts sprinkled clean, bodies washed. Titus 3:5 "he saved us ...by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit." Baptism of infants Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:15, 16:33, 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16: suggests baptism of all, incl. children. Jn 3:5; Rom 6:4: necessity of baptism. Col 2:11-12: circumcision (normally performed on infants c.f. Gen 17:12) replaced by baptism. Tit 3:5: "washing of regeneration". "Brothers" of Jesus Mary wife of Cleophas and "sister" of the Virgin Mary (Jn 19:25) is the mother of James and Joset (Mk 15:47; Mt 27:56) who are called the "brothers of Jesus" (Mk 6:3). Acts 1:12-15: apostles, Mary, "some women" and Jesus' "brothers" number about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Gen 14:14: Lot, Abraham's nephew (Gen 11:26-28), described as Abraham's brother (KJV). Gen 29:15: Laban, Jacob's uncle, calls Jacob his "brother" (KJV). John 19:26-27: Jesus gives care of Mary to John, not one of his "brothers." 2 Sam 6:23, Gen 8:7, Dt 34:6: "until." Church and authority Acts 2:42: doctrine, community, sacred rite (bread). Eph 5:25-26: Christ loved the Church. 1 Tim 3:15: church is pillar and foundation of truth. Mt 16:18; 20:20: Christ protects Church. Heb 13:17: obey. Mt 18:17-18: church as final authority. Mt 23:2: Pharisees succeeded Moses (seat of Moses). 1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20: excommunication. Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14 ...apostles are the Church's foundation, Christ is its cornerstone. 1 Timothy 4 :1-2 ...in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars... 1 John 4:1 there are false prophets 2 Peter 3: 15-16 Paul teaching is hard to understand ... and it is distorted by some

Celibaby 1 Cor 7

Divinity of Christ Is 7:14 & Mathew 1:23 Emmanuel=God with us Isaiah 9:5 he will be called Mighty God Is. 45:5 I am the Lord and there is no other Is. 45:18 God is the Creator ; John 1: 3 & Hebrews 1:1-3 The Word is the Creator Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD...I will not give my glory to another, & John 17:5 glorify me, Father, with you, with the glory that I had with you before the world began Isaiah 45:23 ...: Before me every knee will bow & Philippians 2:10 in the name of Jesus.. every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, John 1:1 the Word was God John 10:22 I and the Father are one John 14:7-11 who has seen me has seen the Father John 16:15 Everything that the Father has is mine John 20:27-28... Thomas ....my Lord and my God Romans 9:6Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen Philippians 2:5-8Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God Colossians 2:8-10...in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 1 Timothy 1:16-17Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God... & 1 Timothy 6:14-16...the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach ... 1 Timothy 2:3-4For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 1 Timothy 3:16..great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh. Titus 1:3....the commandment of God our Saviour. & Titus 2:10.....the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. & Titus 2:13...our great God and Savior Jesus Christ . Hebrews 1:1-3God...has spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being ..the express image of his person, ... Hebrews 1:8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: Jude 25To the only wise God our Saviour

Deuterocanonicals Deuterocanonicals were used in NT: 2 Mach 6:18-7:42 Heb 11:35; Wisdom 3:5-6 ...1 Pet 1:6-7; Wisdom 13:1-9 ...Rom 1:18-32 Septuagint (Gk, w/ Deuterocanonicals) version of OT quoted in NT, noticably different from Hebrew version: Is 7:14 ...Mt 1:23; Is 40:3 ...Mt 3:3; Joel 2:30-31 ...Acts 2:19-29; Ps 95:7-9 ...Heb 3:7-9 etc. Eucharist Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25: this is my body ...this is my blood.

1 Cor 11:26-30: sinning against the body and blood. Jn 6:32-58: all on Eucharist. Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Heb 7:1-17: Melchizedek. Acts 2:42: breaking of bread. Ps 27:1-2; Is 9:18-20; Is 49:26; Micah 3:3; Rev 17:6,16: symbolic interpretation of Jn 6 inappropriate. Forgiveness of sins Jn 20:22-23: "if you forgive ...they are forgiven." Mt 18:18: binding on earth and heaven. 2 Cor 5:18: ministry of reconciliation. Jas 5:14-16: forgiveness of sins, anointing of the sick, confession.

Justification 1 Jn 1:7, 2 Pet 1:9: purified from sins. Jn 1:29, Heb 9:26-28: takes away sin. Ps 50:3, Ps 102:12, Is 43:25: blot out, clear away sin. Rom 2:13, Rom 3:20: future justification. Heb 11:8...Gen 12:1-4; Rom 4:2-3...Gen 15:6; Jas 2:21-23...Gen 22:1-18: justifications of Abraham. 2 Pet 1:4: become partakers of the divine nature. Mat 25:46, 2 Cor 5:10: sheep and goats: good works required. Mary Gen 3:15 prophesy of Mary Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5; 1 Kings 1:15-16, 28-31,2:12-20 Intercession of the queen mother, Jn 2:1-5: Mary's intercession. 2 Kings 2:1-13: Enoch and Elijah taken to heaven. Lk 1:28: annunciation.- kecharitomene (means full of grace which thou hast received (made perfect)) Lk 1:42-48: blessed are you among women. 2 Tim 4:8, Jas 1:12, 1 Pet 5:4, Rev 2:10: coronation awaits saints. Rev 12:1-6: Mary's prominence in heaven. Rev 12:4,13,17: serpent's hatred of Mary. Mary as the New Ark Luke 1:39-56 & 2 Kings 6:1-11 Rev 11:19-12:1: OT ark, NT ark. No Private Interpretation 2 Peter 1:20 against personal interpretation. 2 Peter 3: 15-16 Paul teaching is hard to understand ... and it is distorted by some Acts 8:31; Heb 5:12: guidance needed to interpret scriptures.

Papacy/infallibility Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; Lk 9:32: Peter always mentioned first, as foremost apostle. Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69: Peter speaks for the apostles. Acts 2:14-40: Pentecost: Peter who first preached. Acts 3:6-7: Peter worked first healing. Acts 10:46-48: Gentiles to be baptized revealed to Peter. Acts 15:7 Peter summarizes the conclusion Jn 1:42: Simon is Cephas (Aramaic: Kepha for rock). Mt 16:18-19: "on this Rock ...keys ...bind ...loose" ; Is 22:15-24. keys... open...shut; Rev 1:18: keys as symbol of authority. Jn 21:17: "feed my sheep" Lk 22:31-32: "Simon ...strengthen your brethren". Lk 10:1-2, 16; Jn 13:20; 2 Cor 5:20; Gal 4:14; Acts 5:1-5: "vicars" (substitutes) of Christ. Mk 6:20; Lk 1:70,2:23; Rom 12:1; Act 3:21, 1 Cor 7:14; Eph 3:5; Col 1:22: humans can be holy ("call no one holy").

Perseverance Mt 10:22 - he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine ... Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers Hebrews 10:36 You need to persevere so that... you will receive what he has promised. James 1:12 ... the man who perseveres under trial...will receive the crown of life ... 1 John 2:24 See that what you have heard ..remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.

Priesthood and worship Acts 1:15-26; 2 Tim 2:2; Tit 1:5: unbroken succession. Acts 15:6,23; 1 Tim 4:14, 5:22; 1 Tim 5:17; Jas 5:13-15: presbyters/elders (priests) were ordained, preached and taught the flock, administered sacraments. Lk 16:24; Rom 4; 1 Cor 4:14-15; Acts 7:2; 1 Thess 2:11; 1 Jn 2:13-14: "call no one father"? 1 Cor 7:7-9: Paul unmarried. Mt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:32,33: celibacy. Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4; Heb 7:1-17: Melchizedek. Rev 4:8: "vain repetition"? 1 Kg 8:54; 2 Chr 6:13; Ezra 9:5; Mt 17:14; Lk 5:8: kneeling. Rev 8:3-4: incense. 1 Cor 12: different roles of members of body.

Purgatory

Rev 21:27: nothing unclean shall enter heaven. Heb 12:23: souls in heaven are perfect. Mt 12:32: no forgiveness ...nor in the age to come. 1 Jn 5:14-17: mortal/venial sins Matthew 5:19 who breaks ...the least of these commandments ...will be called least in the kingdom of heaven (venial sin does not cause eternal death) 1 Corinthians 6:9 list of those in mortal sin Lk 12:59; 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7; Mt 5:25-26: temporary agony. Heb 12:6-11: God's painful discipline. 1 Pet 3:19: purgatory (limbo?). 1 Cor 3: 10-16 he will be saved... though the flames 2 Sam 12:14: "extra" suffering. 2 Mac 12:43-46: sacrifice for the dead. 2 Tim 1:15-18: prayer for Onesiphorus for "that Day."

Saints Deut 18:9-14: condemns practices of worshippers of false gods. Saul speaks to Samuel after he dies: I Samuel 28:7-19 Mathew 22:32 , Mk 12:26-27: "not God of the dead, but of the living." 1 Cor 12:25-27; Rom 12:4-5: body of Christ. Eph 6:18; Rom 15:30; Col 4:3; 1 Thess 1:2: intercessory prayer. Jos 5:14; Dan 8:17; Tob 12:16: veneration of angels united with God (Mt 18:10). 1 Cor 13:12; 1 John 3:2: saints also united with God. Lk 20:34-38: the dead are like angels; all alive to him. 2 Mac 15:11-16: deceased Onias and Jeremiah interceded for Jews. Heb 12:1: "crowd of witnesses". Heb 12:23 "you have come to the spirits of the redeemed in heaven" Rev 5:8; 8:3-4; Jer 15:1: saints' intercession. Heb 11:39-40 the OT people are made perfect only with us Salvation (once and for all?) Ez 18:21-25 if a righteous man turns from his righteousness ...he will die Mathew 7:20-27 by their fruit you will recognize them. ..."Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' Rom 6:16 sin leads to death Rom 8:12-14 living by sinful nature...you will die Rom 8:23-24 we await.. . for in this hope we are saved Rom 11:21,22: spare branches, continue or be cut off. 1 Cor 9:26-27: after preaching ...I myself be disqualified. 1 Cor 10:12: thinks that he stands ...lest he fall. Phil 2:12: work out salvation with fear and trembling. Heb 4:1: fear of failing to reach salvation. Heb 12:15: See to it that no one misses the grace of God ...to cause trouble and defile many. 1 Jn 5:16,17: some sins are mortal, some not.

2 John 1:8 ...do not lose what we worked for but may receive a full recompense 2 Peter 2:20 knowing ...Jesus Christ and ...again entangled in ir(sin)..., they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.

Sola scriptura and Tradition Jn 21:25: not everything is in the Bible. 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13: Paul speaks of oral tradition. Acts 2:42: early Christians followed apostolic tradition. Rom 10:14-18 how can they hear without someone preaching to them 2 Pet 3:16: Bible hard to understand; believers must be taught. 2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14: more oral tradition. 2 Pet 1:20-21: against personal interpretation.

Sola fide? Mathew 7:20-27- Not everyone who says to me, Lord.. Mt. 25:31-46 final judgement Mt 7: 20-27; Mt 19:16-21; Lk 6:46; Jn 5:29: must do will of God. John 15:1-8: vine and its branches. Rom 2: 6-10 God "will give to each person according to what he has done Rom 4:22 through 6:16 faith is a process Rom 7:4 we have to bear fruit Rom 8:12-14 we have an obligation 1 Cor 9:27: "buffet my body ..." 1 Cor 13:1-13 if I have no love... Gal 5:6 The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. Col 1:24 I rejoice in my suffering.... for the sake of Phil 2:12; 2 Cor 5:10; Rom 2:6-10, 13, 3:31; Mt 25:32-46; Gal 6:6-10; Rev 20:12: works have merit. Heb 10:26: must avoid sin. Heb 11: faith and action. James 1:22-24: Do not just listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves....like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and...forgets what he looks like. James 2 (all) James 2:14-26:what good is faith w/o works? James 5:20: "earning" forgiveness. 1 John 1,2 and 3 (all) the one who has faith does not sin 1 Jn 2:3-4; 3:7,24; 5:3: keep commandments. 1 John 2:4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death 2 Jn 1:9 Anyone who is so "progressive" 7 as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son.

3 Jn 1:11: He who does good is of God. Statues, images and relics Ex 25:18-22, 26:1,31; Num 21:8-9: God commands images made. 1 Kings 6:23-29, 35, 7:29: Solomon's temple: statues and images. Acts 19:11,12: Paul's handkerchiefs and aprons. 2 Kg 13:20-21: Elisha's bones. Acts 5:15-16: Peter's shadow. Mt 9:20-22: Jesus' garment cures woman.

Trinity Genesis 1:26-27 - God says: "Let us make man in our imageGod made man in His image" Genesis 18:1-2 - "And the Lord appeared to himhe beheld three men" Isaiah 48:16: "..From the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me." Sab 7:22- for Wisdom, the artificer of all, taught me. For in her is a spirit intelligent, holy, unique, manifold,...., Matthew 28:19 - "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" 2 Corinthians 13:14 - "The grace of Jesus, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit

----------------------------------

Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible by Sebastian R. Fama From http://www.staycatholic.com/doctrinal_concordance.htm

The Church Matthew 16:18 - Jesus established and protects His Church Matthew 28:20 - Jesus promises to be with His Church always John 16:13 - The Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth 1 Timothy 3:15 - The Church (not the Bible) is the pillar and foundation of truth Matthew 18:17-18 - If someone refuses to listen to the Church cast him out Matthew 28:18-20 - The Churches authority is Jesus' authority

1 John 4:6 - Anyone who knows God listens to the Church Luke 10:16 - He who rejects the Church rejects Christ Matthew 16:19 - The Church has power to legislate Acts 15:28 - Decisions of the Church are decisions of the Holy Spirit Acts 15:6-29 - Apostles and elders settle disputes authoritatively through councils Acts 16:4 - People are to observe the decisions of the Apostles and elders Acts 1:15-26 - The Apostles choose successors (bishops) Titus 1:5 - Bishops appoint presbyters (priests) 1 Peter 5:5 - Be subject to the elders Hebrews 13:17 - "Obey your leaders and submit to them" John 10:16 - The Church must be one Ephesians 4:4-5 - There is one body, one Lord, one faith and one baptism Romans 16:17-18 - Avoid those who create dissensions 1 Corinthians 1:10 - There must be no divisions among you Philippians 2:2 - Be in full accord and of one mind John 17:21 - Jesus prayed that we would be one Apostolic Succession Ephesians 2:19-20 - The Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets Ephesians 4:11 - That some should be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers Acts 1:23-26 - Matthias is chosen to replace Judas 1 Timothy 3:1-7 - Qualifications for bishops (successors to the apostles) 1 Timothy 4:14 - The office of bishop was conferred upon Timothy by the laying on of hands The Pope / Infallibility John 1:42 - Simon is named Cephas (Peter) which means rock 1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5, Galatians 2:9, 2:11, and 2:14 - Paul refers to Peter as Cephas Matthew 16:18 - Jesus builds His Church on Peter the rock Matthew 16:19 - Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom, the power to loose and bind John 21:15-17 - Jesus entrusts the care of His sheep to Peter Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brethren Acts 1:15-26 - Peter presided over the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas Acts 2:14-42 - Peter preached the first public sermon (Pentecost) Acts 3:6-8 - Peter performs the first miracle after Pentecost Acts 5:1-11 - Peter inflicts the first punishment (Ananias and Saphira) Acts 10:9-16 - It is revealed to Peter that Gentiles can be admitted into the Church Acts 10:44-48 - Peter baptizes the first Gentiles Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13 - Peter is always listed first The Bible Alone? * 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - Scripture is profitable for teaching, that the man of God may be complete Acts 8:26-35 - But guidance is needed to interpret the Scriptures

1 Timothy 3:15 - The Church (not the Bible) is the pillar and foundation of truth Acts 2:42 - Church followed apostolic teaching (no Bibles, printing press not invented yet) 2 Peter 1:20 - Scripture is not a matter of ones own interpretation 2 Peter 3:16 - The ignorant and unstable twist Scripture to their own destruction Proverbs 3:5 - Do not rely on your own insight Tradition * Matthew 15:3, Mark 6:8, Mark 7:9, and Colossians 2:8 - Human traditions condemned 2 Thessalonians 2:15 - Believers commanded to hold fast to Sacred Tradition 2 Thessalonians 3:6 - Shun those not living according to Sacred Tradition 1 Corinthians 11:2 - Corinthians commended for maintaining the traditions handed down to them Romans 16:17 - Avoid those who are in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught Justification * Romans 1:17 - The just shall live by faith Galatians 5:6 - "Faith working through love" 2 John 6 - Love is following His commandments Romans 12:9-13 - "Let love be genuine, hold fast to what is good" Acts 16:30-31 - Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved John 3:36 - Not obeying is not believing Mark 10:17 - "What must I do to be saved?" Mark10:19-21 - Obey the commandments 1 John 2:3-5 - "He who says, 'I know him' but disobeys His commandments is a liar" Revelation 20:12, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 2:2-8, 1 Peter 1:17 - We are judged by our deeds Romans 2:13 - Doers of the law not hearers of the law will be justified James 2:14-26 - "Faith without works is dead" Matthew 25:31-46 - The saved are those who feed the poor and cloth the naked John 14:6 - Jesus is the only way to salvation Matthew 25:40 - Reject your neighbor and you reject Jesus * Ephesians 2:8-9 - We are saved by grace not our works Hebrews 4:15-16 - God gives us grace in time of need, we do nothing on our own Romans 1:5 - Jesus provides the grace to bring about the obedience of faith 1 Corinthians 10:13 - No temptation is too great, grace provides a way out 1 Corinthians 12:3 - We cannot even say that Jesus is Lord with out grace Phillipians 4:13 - We can do anything with Christ (works performed by grace are not our works) Matthew 7:21 - [that's why] Only those who do the will of the Father will enter the kingdom Have You Been Saved? Ephesians 2:5-8, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 3:5-7 - I have been saved Phillipians 2:12 - I am being saved Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Titus 3:5-7, Phillipians 3:11-14 - I hope to be saved 1 Corinthians 9:25-27, Romans 11:22, Hebrews 10:26 - Salvation can be lost

2 John 8, Hebrews 6:4-8 - Salvation can be lost 1 Corinthians 4:2-5 - Paul does not even claim to be saved Regenerative Baptism John 3:5 - You must be born of water and of Spirit to enter the kingdom Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins Titus 3:5 - We are saved by the washing of regeneration Acts 22:16 - "Be baptized and wash away your sins" Romans 6:4 - "We were baptized into Christ's death that we might walk in newness of life" 1 Peter 3:21 - "Baptism now saves you" Infant Baptism Colossians 2:11-12 - Baptism replaces circumcision Genesis 17:12 - Circumcision took place on the eighth day after birth Mark 10:14 - Children can receive spiritual benefits Luke 18:15 - "Now they were bringing even infants to Him" Acts 16:15 - She was baptized with all her household (children?) Acts 16:33 - He was baptized with all his family (children?) 1 Corinthians 1:16 - Paul baptized the household of Stephanus (children?) Acts 2:39-39 - Be baptized, "the promise is to you and to your children" The Mass Malachi 1:11 - Foresees a pure sacrifice that takes place among the nations (Jews & Gentiles) Matthew 26:26-28 - At the Last Supper Jesus broke the bread and gave it to His disciples Acts 2:42 - The early church devoted itself to the Apostles teaching and the breaking of bread Acts 2:46 - They attended temple (Liturgy of the Word) and broke bread (Liturgy of the Eucharist) Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist Exodus 12:8, 46, Leviticus 6:17-19 - Under the Old Covenant the sacrificial lamb was eaten 1 Corinthians 5:7 - Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of the New Covenant John 6:53 - Under the New Covenant the sacrificial lamb must also be eaten John 6:35-71 - The Eucharist is promised John 6:35, 48, 51 - Jesus says, "I am the Bread of Life" John 6:51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 - Jesus says, "The bread which I give is my flesh" John 6:66 - Jesus disciples took him literally and He didn't correct them Isaiah 9:20 - To symbolically eat ones flesh meant to do harm Isaiah 49:26 - To symbolically eat ones flesh meant to do harm Micah 3:3 - To symbolically eat ones flesh meant to do harm Matthew 26:26-28 - The Eucharist is instituted, "This is my body this is my blood" 1 Corinthians 10:16 - The bread and wine are a participation in the body and blood of Christ

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 - This is my body this is my blood 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 - Receiving unworthily is profaning the body and blood of the Lord Confession / Reconciliation Mark 2:5 - Jesus forgives sins John 20:21 - Jesus says: "As I have been sent so I send you" 2 Corinthians 5:18 - Christ gave us the ministry of reconciliation John 20:23 - If you (the apostles and their successors) forgive the sins of any they are forgiven John 20:23 - If you (the apostles and their successors) retain the sins of any they are retained Romans 2:4 - "Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" Acts 3:19 - Repentance needed for forgiveness Matthew 6:15 - Believers may not retain the sins of anyone Purgatory Numbers 20:12 - Moses and Aaron, though forgiven, are still punished 2 Samuel 12:13-14 - David, though forgiven, is still punished 1 John 5:16-17 - There is sin that is not deadly Revelation 21:27 - Nothing unclean shall enter heaven Hebrews 12:23 - All in heaven have been made perfect Matthew 12:36 - "On judgment day men will account for every careless word they utter" Matthew 18:23-35 - In the kingdom of heaven you will remain in prison until your debt is paid 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 - Fire will test each ones work. He will be saved but only as through fire Luke 12:41-48 - There are different degrees of punishment after death 2 Maccabees 12:42-45 - He prayed for the dead that they might be freed from their sin 2 Timothy 1:16-18 - Paul prays for his dead friend Onesiphorus Praying to Saints * Deuteronomy 18:10-11 - Critics liken praying to saints to divination 1 Samuel 28:3-14 - Divination is conjuring information from the dead (not asking for their prayers) * 1 Timothy 2:5 - "There is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" Hebrews 9:15 - Specifically: "He [Jesus] is the mediator of a new covenant" (when someone prays for you they are not mediating a new covenant) 1 Corinthians 12:13 - "We were all baptized into one body" Romans 12:5 - We are one body and individually members of one another Colossians 1:18 - Christ is the head of the body Romans 8:35-39 - Death cannot separate us from Christ (or the rest of the body either) 1 Corinthians 12:26 - If one suffers all suffer Galatians 6:2 - We are to bear one another's burdens James 5:16 - We are to pray for one another James 5:16 - The prayer of the righteous has great power Luke 15:7 - Those in heaven (very righteous) care for us

Revelation 4:8 - Those in heaven pray constantly Matthew 18:10 - The angels pray for us Revelation 5:8 - The angels and saints present our prayers to God Revelation 8:3-4 - The angels add their prayers to ours and present them to God Tobit 12:12 - An angel presented Tobit and Sarah's prayer to God 2 Maccabees 15:11-14 - The deceased Onias and Jeremiah pray for Israel Mary Ever-Virgin * Matthew 1:25 - Joseph knew her not until she had born a son Luke 1:80 - The word until in Greek does not imply that anything happened after the fact Matthew 13:55 - "Are not His [Jesus] brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" Matthew 27:56 - Mary the mother of James and Joseph is also John 19:25 - Mary the wife of Clopas (not Joseph) Matthew 28:10 - Jesus said, "Tell my brethren to go to Galilee and there they will see me" Matthew 28:16 - "The eleven disciples went to Galilee" (Are they His siblings too?) Mark 6:3 - Jesus is the son of Mary not a son of Mary John 19:26-27 - Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the apostle John as He had no siblings The Immaculate Conception Genesis 3:15 - Enmity between Satan and Mary (if she sinned there would be no enmity) * Romans 3:23 - All have sinned (Paul is saying there is no advantage for Jew or Gentile) Luke 1:28 - "Hail full of grace," in Greek indicates something that was completed in the past * Luke 1:47 - "My spirit rejoices in God my savior" (Jesus saved Mary by preserving her from sin) The Assumption 2 Kings 2:1-13 - Elijah is assumed into heaven Hebrews 11:5 - Enoch is assumed into heaven John 5:28-29 - All of the righteous will be assumed into heaven The Mother of God Luke 1:43 - Elizabeth calls her "The mother of my Lord" Jesus is Lord because He is God Statues and Images * Exodus 20:4-5 - "You shall not make a graven imageyou shall not bow down and serve them" Exodus 25:18 - "And you shall make two cherubim of gold (for the Ark of the Covenant)" Exodus 26:1 - The curtains around the ark have cherubim on them Exodus 26:31 - The linen veil had cherubim placed on it Numbers 21:8-9 - The Lord tells Moses to make the bronze serpent (did He forget Exodus 20?)

1 Kings 6:23 - By God's design the temple had engraved cherubim 1 Kings 6:35 - Doors in the temple had Cherubim, flowers and palm trees carved on them 1 Kings 7:25-45 - By God's design the temple had bronze oxen and lions Relics 2 Kings 13:20-21 - A dead man comes to life after touching the bones of Elisha Matthew 9:20-22 - A woman is cured by touching Jesus' garment Acts 19:11-12 - People were healed by handkerchiefs or aprons that touched Paul Holy Medals and Scapulars Numbers 15:37-40 - The Israelites wore reminders of God The Trinity Genesis 1:26-27 - God says: "Let us make man in our imageGod made man in His image" Genesis 18:1-2 - "And the Lord appeared to himhe beheld three men" Sab 7:22- for Wisdom, the artificer of all, taught me. For in her is a spirit intelligent, holy, unique, manifold,...., Matthew 28:19 - "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" 2 Corinthians 13:14 - "The grace of Jesus, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit" Jesus is God Isaiah 9:6 - Prophecy concerning Jesus: "He will be calledMighty God" John 1:1 - Jesus is the Word and the Word is God John 8:58 - Jesus claims to be the great "I Am" (God, Exodus 3:14) John 10:30-33 - Jesus said: "The Father and I are one" John 10:38 - Jesus said: "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" John 14:9 - Jesus said: "He who has seen me has seen the Father" John 20:28 - Jesus accepts Thomas calling Him "My Lord and my God" Colossians 2:9 - "In Him [Jesus} dwells the fullness of deity" Titus 2:13 - "Awaiting our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" The Holy Spirit is God Acts 5:3-4 - Lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 - "The Lord is the Spirit" The Holy Spirit is a Person Not a Force John 14:26 - The Holy Spirit will teach you all things Acts 8:29 - "And the Spirit said to Philip"

Acts 13:2 - "The Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul'" Romans 8:27 - "The Spirit intercedes for the saints" 1 Corinthians 2:11 - "No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit" 1 Corinthians 12:11 - "The Spirit apportions to each one as He wills" Ephesians 4:30 - "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit" Confirmation Acts 8:14-17 - Peter and John pray for baptized Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit Acts 19:5-6 - Paul lays hands on those already baptized and they receive the Holy Spirit Holy Orders Luke 22:17-19 - Jesus institutes the priesthood at the Last Supper John 20:22 - The Apostles are given the authority to forgive sin Titus 1:5 - Bishops appoint presbyters (priests) Acts 6:2-6 - The first deacons are ordained Acts 14:23 - Paul and Barnabas appoint elders for the churches at Derbe Titus 1:5 - Titus, a bishop, is to appoint presbyters (priests) in every town Celibacy * 1 Timothy 4:1-3 - Forbidding marriage is a doctrine of demons Ephesians 5:21-33 - Marriage is good, a symbol of Christ and His Church Matthew 19:12 - Jesus praises celibacy 1 Corinthians 7:8 - The apostle Paul was celibate 1 Corinthians 7:32-35 Celibacy is recommended for those in ministry Anointing of the Sick Mark 6:13 - The Apostles anointed the sick with oil and healed them James 5:14-15 - The presbyters (priests) pray over and anoint the sick with oil Chastity Mark 7:21-23 - Fornication is called evil 1 Corinthians 6:18 - Flee fornication, it is a sin against your body 1 Corinthians 6:19 - Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. You are not your own 1 Corinthians 6:20 - You were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body 1 Thessalonians 4:3 - Abstain from fornication, control your body in holiness not in lust 1 Corinthians 7:1 - It is well for a man not to touch a woman 1 Corinthians 7:2 - Because of the temptation to immorality each man should have his own wife 1 Corinthians 7:2 - And each woman her own husband Galatians 5:19-21 - Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity...those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God

Ephesians 5:5 - No fornicator has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God Revelation 22:15 - Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers Colossians 3:5-6 - Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity... Matrimony Matthew 19:5 - A man leaves his father and mother to be joined to his wife Matthew 19:6 - What God has joined together let no man put asunder Ephesians 5:21-33 - Marriage is an image of the relationship between Christ and His Church Artificial Birth Control Genesis 1:28 - Adam and Eve told by God to be fruitful and multiply Genesis 38:9-10 - Onan killed for spilling his seed on the ground Deuteronomy 25:5-10 - Penalty for defying the Leverite law was not death Galatians 5:20 - The word sorcery, pharmekeia in Greek, refers to abortifacient potions Divorce and Remarriage Malachi 2:14-16 - "For I hate divorce says the Lord" Matthew 5:31-32 - "Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" Matthew 19:9 - Whoever divorces and marries another commits adultery Mark 10:10-12 - Whoever divorces and marries another commits adultery Luke 16:18 - Divorce and remarriage is adultery Romans 7:2-3 - A woman is bound to her husband for life. If she lives with another it's adultery 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 - When divorce is necessary remain single or reconcile Homosexuality Genesis 2:18 - It is not good that man should be alone Genesis 2:28 - I will make him a helper fit for him Genesis 1:27 - Male and female He created them Genesis 1:28 - He said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply" Genesis 2:24 - Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination Romans 1:27 - Homosexuality called unnatural and shameless 1 Corinthians 6:9 - Practicing homosexuals will not go to heaven Matthew 25:31-45 - Jesus is the one who will judge (that is not the job of believers) Matthew 19:19 - You shall love your neighbor as yourself (homosexuals are your neighbors) The Rapture * 1 Thessalonians 4:17 - We shall be caught up together in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air * Matthew 24:40 - Two men will be in the field; one is taken and one is left, However, see Luke 17:35-37 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and

the other left."[d] 37"Where, Lord?" they asked. He replied, "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather." (Is this heaven !!??) Matthew 24:47 - One man is rewarded (salvation) Matthew 24:51 - The other is punished (hell) (that leaves no one on earth) 1 Thessalonians 4:15 - Jesus is coming back once more (not twice for a rapture and judgment) Acts 3:20-21 - Jesus must stay in heaven until that time Acts 1:11 - When He returns He will be coming all the way down to the earth (not hover above it) Matthew 25:31-45 - When He comes He will come to judge the living and the dead Matthew 25:46 - Some go to eternal punishment, some to eternal life (no one left on earth) * Denotes a verse that is used in opposition to Catholic teaching

JESUS ES DIOS
Is 7:10-14; 8:10 The LORD spoke to Ahaz, saying: Ask for a sign from the LORD, your God; let it be deep as the nether world, or high as the sky! But Ahaz answered, "I will not ask! I will not tempt the LORD!" Then Isaiah said: Listen, O house of David! Is it not enough for you to weary people, must you also weary my God? Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Emmanuel, which means "God is with us!" ----------------------------------------A Jesus se le ora (Hech 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:1-2), se le adora (Mat. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; Juan 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6), y se le llama Dios (Juan 20:28; Heb. 1:8; Tito 2:13). en Hechos 7:55-60, Esteban, estando lleno del Espritu Santo, or a Jess. Dice: "Mientras lo apedreaban, Esteban oraba y deca: Seor Jess, recibe mi espritu" (vea tambin Hech 9:14 y Rom. 10:13.) "Entonces los que estaban en la barca se acercaron y lo adoraron, diciendo: Verdaderamente eres Hijo de Dios" (Mat. 14:33). "Jess les sali al encuentro, diciendo: Salve!. Y ellas, acercndose, abrazaron sus pies y lo adoraron." (Mat. 28:9). (vea tambin Mat. 2:2,11; Juan 9:35-39; Heb. 1:6.). En Hebreos 1:6 dice "Y nuevamente al introducir a su Primognito en el mundo dice: Y adrenle todos los ngeles de Dios." . Los ngeles no pueden adorar a otro ngel sino solo a Dios. Cmo resuelven los Testigos este problema? En el 1970 sacaron una nueva "traduccin" de su "Biblia"(20) en la que la palabra adorar convenientemente desapareci de Hebreos 1:6. Jn. 1,1: En el principio era la Palabra (o el Verbo) y la Palabra estaba con Dios y la Palabra era Dios Mt. 1,23: La virgen concebir y dar luz a un hijo y le pondrn por nombre Emmanuel, que significa Dios con nosotros . Juan 20:28 dice: "Entonces Toms respondi y le dijo: Seor mo y Dios mo!".

Adems, Dios mismo llama "Dios" a Jess en Hebreos 1:8: "Pero del Hijo dice: Tu trono, Dios, por los siglos de los siglos...". El Padre le llama Dios a Jess. Romanos 9,5: De ellos naci Cristo segn la carne, el cual es Dios sobre todas las

cosas, bendito por los siglos. Tito 2,13: Esperamos la manifestacin gloriosa del gran Dios y Salvador nuestro Jesucristo. 1a Juan 5,20: El hijo de Dios ha venido y nos ha dado entendimiento para conocer al que es verdadero; y estamos en el Verdadero, en su Hijo Jesucristo. Este es el Verdadero Dios y la Vida eterna. "...Nuestro nico dueo y Seor Jesucristo" (Judas 4).

Jesus says he and the Father are one (John, 10: 30, 36). The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus Christ, the Son, is God. For example, Hebrews 1:8 says, "But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever ...'" Many other verses also teach this John 1:1, 14; 20:26-28; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:3, 8-9; 2 Peter 1:1. Jn. 10,30: Yo y el Padre somos una sola cosa. Jn. 5,18: Mas procuraban los judo matarlo, porque no slo quebrantaba el sbado, sino que tambin llamaba a Dios su Padre, hacindose igual a Dios Mc. 2,7: Porqu (Jess) habla as? Dice blasfemias, porque slo Dios puede perdonar los pecados. Mas es Jess quien tiene toda autoridad (Mat. 28:18) para perdonar pecados (Luc 5:20-24; 7:48-49). El juzga (Juan 5:22,27); El da vida eterna (Juan 10:28; 5:40), Hechos 20,28: Apacentar la Iglesia de Dios, que El gan con su sangre. Compare con Mateo 16:18 que dice: T eres Pedro y sobre esta piedra edificar mi Iglesia
1 Timothy 3:16. This Scripture says that God was manifest in the flesh.

Jesus dice que el Padre es mayor que El, pues Jess fue hecho por un tiempo inferior a los ngeles (Heb. 2:9) y en este versiculo El habla desde su punto de vista humano. Si aceptamos que Cristo es Dios y es Hombre verdaderamente, se esfuman las aparentes contradicciones, pues algunos textos nos hablan de El como Dios ,y otros textos nos hablan de El como hombre. El Hijo de Dios comunica a su naturaleza (o parte) humana su propio modo personal de existir en la Trinidad: Sin dejar de ser Dios comenz a ser hombre; Y el Verbo se hizo carne, y habit entre nosotros; (Jn. 1:14) Alfa y Omega: (and its Hebrew equivalent) signify an absolute plenitude, or perfection. In the Apocalypse the "Alpha-Omega" taking the place of its Hebrew equivalent occur in the first

chapter to designate God the Almighty, (Ap. 1: 8); but in the last two chapters to designate Christ (Ap., 21:6; 22:13). It is an argument that its author believed in the divinity of Christ. [Origin of Alpha & Omega: When God passed before the face of Moses on Sinai the great Law-giver of Israel called out: "Yahweh, Yahweh and and merciful God, of long-suffering, and full of goodness and truth" [(Ex., xxxiv, 6), in the Douay Version, "0 the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, patient and of much compassion, and true"]. God's being is fullness of goodness and truth -- Plenitudo veri et boni in the Latin translation. They are foremost among God's moral attributes. They are the immediate outcome of His Divine operations. For God is an infinitely pure spirit. His being is Intellect and Will. Truth is the final object of the intellect, and goodness is that of the will. Of the two perfections truth and goodness, the former ranks higher. Truth is the first of all perfections. The Hebrew word for truth is Emeth. It is composed of three letters: Aleph=Alpha, Mem=My, and Thaw=Theta. The Aleph and the Thaw are the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet as the Alpha and Omega are of the Greek. Thus the term Emeth (truth) begins with the first letter of the alphabet and ends with the last. This letter of the alphabet and ends with the last. This led the Jewish sages to find in this word a mystical meaning. The Aleph or the first letter of Emeth(truth) denotes that God is the first of all things. There was no one before Him of whom He could have received the fullness of truth. The Thaw, or last letter, in like manner signifies that God is the last of all things. There will be no one after Him to whom He could bequeath it. Thus Emeth is a sacred word expressing that in God truth dwells absolutely and in all plenitude. Emeth, as the Jewish divines truly say, is the signaculum Dei essentia . In Yoma 69b., and Sanh. 64a., the following is related: "The men of the great synagogue prayed to God to remove from the earth the Evil Spirit, as the cause of all trouble. Immediately a scroll fell from heaven with the word Truth written thereon, and thereupon a fiery lion came out of the sanctuary. It was the spirit of idolatry leaving the earth". "This legend shows", says Hanina "that the seal of God is truth". (Jewish Encyclopedia.) The manner of expressing God's eternity by means of the first and last letters of the alphabet seems to have passed from from the synagogue into the Church. In place of the Aleph and Thaw, the Alpha and Omega were substituted. But the substitution of the Greek letters for those of the Hebrew tongue inevitably caused a portion of the meaning and beauty in thus designating God to be lost. The Greek letters Alpha and Omega have no relation to the word Truth. Omega is not the last letter of the word aletheia (truth), as Thaw is of the word Emeth. The sacred and mystical word Truth, expressing in Hebrew, through its letters Aleph and Thaw, God's absolute and eternal being, had to be sacrificed when translated to the greek. ]

Did Jesus teach that He is God? He certainly claimed to be the Messias (John, 6:26), to fulfill the Messianic descriptions of the Old Testament (Matt., 11:3-5; Luke, 7:22-23; 4:18-21), to be denoted by the current Messianic names, "king of israel" (Luke, 19:38; etc), "Son of David" (Matt., 9:27; etc), "Son of man" (passim), "he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Matt., 21:9.etc). Moreover, Jesus claims to be greater than Abraham (John, 8:53, 56), than Moses (Matt., 19:8-9), than Solomon and Jonas (Matt., 12:41-42); He habitually claims to be sent by God (John, 5:36, 37, 43; etc), calls God His Father (Luke, 2:49; etc), and He willingly accepts the titles "Master" and "Lord" (John, 13:13, 14). He forgives sin in answer to the observation that God alone can forgive sin (Mark, 2:7, 10; Luke, 5:21, 24; etc). He acts as the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt., 12:8; etc), and tells St. Peter that as "Son" He is free from the duty of paying

temple-tribute (Matt., 17:24, 25). From the beginning of His ministry he allows Nathanael to call Him "Son of God" (John, 1:49); the Apostles (Matt., 14:33) and Martha (John, 11:27) give Him the same title. Twice He approves of Peter who calls Him "the Christ, the Son of God" (John, vi, 70), "Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt., 16:16). Four distinct times does He proclaim Himself the Son of God; to the man born blind (John, 10:30, 36); before the two assemblies of the Jewish Sanhedrin on the night before His death (Matt., 26:63-64; Mark, 14:61-62; Luke, 22:70). He does not manifest His Divine Sonship before Satan (Matt., 4:3, 6) or before the Jews who are deriding Him (Matt., 27:40). Jesus does not wish to teach the evil spirit the mystery of His Divinity; to the Jews He gives a greater sign than they are asking for. Jesus, therefore, applies to Himself, and allows others to apply to Him, the title "Son of God" in its full meaning. If there had been a misunderstanding He would have corrected it, even as Paul and Barnabas corrected those who took them for gods (Acts, 14:12-14). Nor can it be said that the title "Son of God" denotes a merely adoptive sonship. The foregoing texts do not admit of such an interpretation. St. Peter, for instance, places his master above John the Baptist, Elias, and the Prophets (Matt., 16:13-17). Again, the Angel Gabriel declares that the Child to be born will be "the Son of the most High" and "Son of God" (Luke, 1:32, 35), in such a way that He will be without an earthly father. Mere adoption presupposes the existence of the child to be adopted; but St. Joseph is warned that "That which is conceived in her [Mary], is of the Holy Ghost" (Matt., 1:20); now one's being conceived by the operation of another implies one's natural relation of sonship to him. Moreover, the Divine Sonship claimed by Jesus is such that he and the Father are one (John, 10:30, 36); a merely adopted sonship does not constitute a physical unity between the son and his adoptive father. Finally if Jesus had claimed only an adoptive sonship, He would have deceived His judges; they could not have condemned Him for claiming a prerogative common to all pious Israelites.

Si Dios le rinde gloria al Hijo es porque el hijo es Dios, pues el Ser Supremo no podria dar gloria a alguien inferior: Jn 13:31-33a, 34-35 . When Judas had left them, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him.If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and God will glorify him at once. Es claro que Jesus es cosustancial con el Padre en una sola naturaleza divina.

Jesus es el mismo que esta sentado en en trono, lo cual tambien se dice del Padre o de Dios: Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne Rv 21:1-5a The One who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." Revelation 7:10 And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." Revelation 7:11

All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, Revelation 7:15 Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them

Psalm 105:6-7 He, the LORD, is our God junto con Phil 3:8a More than that, I even consider everything as a loss because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.

from http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY3.TXT

THE GREAT HERESIES by Hilaire Belloc Chapter Three The Arian Heresy Arianism was the first of the great heresies. There had been from the foundation of the Church at Pentecost A.D. 29[1] to 33 a mass of heretical movements filling the first three centuries. They had turned, nearly all of them, upon the nature of Christ. The effect of our Lord's predication, and Personality, and miracles, but most of all His resurrection, had been to move every one who had any faith at all in the wonder presented, to a conception of divine power running through the whole affair. Now the central tradition of the Church here, as in every other case of disputed doctrine, was strong and clear from the beginning. Our Lord was undoubtedly a man. He had been born as men are born, He died as men die. He lived as a man and had been known as a man by a group of

close companions and a very large number of men and women who had followed Him, and heard Him and witnessed His actions. But_said the Church_He was also God. God had come down to earth and become Incarnate as a Man. He was not merely a man influenced by the Divinity, nor was He a manifestation of the Divinity under the appearance of a man. He was at the same time fully God and fully Man. On that the central tradition of the Church never wavered. It is taken for granted from the beginning by those who have authority to speak. But a mystery is necessarily, because it is a mystery, incomprehensible; therefore man, being a reasonable being, is perpetually attempting to rationalize it. So it was with this mystery. One set would say Christ was only a man, though a man endowed with special powers. Another set, at the opposite extreme, would say He was a manifestation of the Divine. His human nature was a thing of illusion. They played the changes between those two extremes indefinitely. Well, the Arian heresy was, as it were, the summing up and conclusion of all these movements on the unorthodox side_that is, of all those movements which did not accept the full mystery of two natures. Since it is very difficult to rationalize the union of the Infinite with the finite, since there is an apparent contradiction between the two terms, this final form into which the confusion of heresies settled down was a declaration that our Lord was as much of the Divine Essence as it was possible for a creature to be, but that He was none the less a creature. He was not the Infinite and Omnipotent God who must be of His nature one and indivisible, and could not (so they said) be at the same time a limited human moving and having his being in the temporal sphere. Arianism (I will later describe the origin of the name) was willing to grant our Lord every kind of honour and majesty short of the full nature of the Godhead. He was created (or, if people did not like the word "created'' then "he came forth'') from the Godhead before all other effects thereof. Through Him the world was created. He was granted one might (say paradoxically) all the divine attributes_except divinity. Essentially this movement sprang from exactly the same source as any other rationalistic movement from the beginning to our own time. It sprang from the desire to visualize clearly and simply something which is beyond the grasp of human vision and comprehension. Therefore, although it began by giving to our Lord every possible honour and glory short of the actual Godhead, it would inevitably have led in the long run into mere unitarianism and the treating of our Lord at last as a prophet and, however exalted, no more than a prophet. As all heresies necessarily breathe the air of the time in which they arise, and are necessarily a reflection of the philosophy of whatever non-Catholic ideas are prevalent at that moment they arise, Arianism spoke in the terms of its day. It did not begin as a similar movement would begin today by making our Lord a mere man and nothing else. Still less did it deny the supernatural as a whole. The time in which it arose (the years round about A.D. 300) was a time in which all society took the supernatural for granted. But it spoke of our Lord as a Supreme Agent of God_a

Demiurge_and regarded him as the first and greatest of those emanations of the Central Godhead through which emanations the fashionable philosophy of the day got over the difficulty of reconciling the Infinite and simple Creator with a complex and finite universe. So much for the doctrine and for what its rationalistic tendencies would have ended in had it conquered. It would have rendered the new religion something like Mohammedanism or perhaps, seeing the nature of Greek and Roman society, something like an Oriental Calvinism. At any rate, what I have just set down was the state of this doctrine so long as it flourished: a denial of Our Lord's full Godhead combined with an admission of all his other attributes. Now when we are talking of the older dead heresies we have to consider the spiritual and therefore social effects of them much more than their mere doctrinal error, although that doctrinal error was the ultimate cause of all their spiritual and social effects. We have to do this because, when a heresy has been long dead, its savour is forgotten. The particular tone and unmistakable impress which it stamped upon society being no longer experienced is non-existent for us, and it had to be resurrected, as it were, by anyone who wants to talk true history. It would be impossible, short of an explanation of this kind, to make a Catholic from Bearn today, a peasant from the neighbourhood of Lourdes where Calvinism, once prevalent there, is now dead, understand the savour and individual character of Calvinism as it still survives in Scotland and in sections of the United States. But we must try to realize this now forgotten Arian atmosphere, because, until we understand its spiritual and therefore social savour, we cannot be said to <know> it really at all. Further, one must understand this savour or intimate personal character of the movement, and its individual effect on society, in order to understand its importance. There is no greater error in the whole range of bad history than imagining that doctrinal differences, because they are abstract and apparently remote from the practical things of life, are not therefore of intense social effect. Describe to a Chinaman today the doctrinal quarrel of the Reformation, tell him that it was above all a denial of the doctrine of the <one> visible church, and a denial of the special authority of its officers. That would be true. He would so far understand what happened at this Reformation as he might understand a mathematical statement. But would that make him understand the French Huguenots of today, the Prussian manner in war and politics, the nature of England and her past since Puritanism arose in this country? Would it make him understand the Orange Lodges or the moral and political systems of, say, Mr. H. G. Wells or Mr. Bernard Shaw? Of course it would not! To give a man the history of tobacco, to give him the chemical formula (if there be such a thing) for nicotine, is not to make him understand what is meant by the smell of tobacco and the effects of smoking it. So it is with Arianism. Merely to say that Arianism was what it was doctrinally is to enunciate a formula, but not to give the thing itself. When Arianism arose it came upon a society which was already, and had long been, the one Universal Polity of which all civilized men were citizens. There were no separate nations. The Roman empire was one state from the Euphrates to the Atlantic and from the Sahara to the Scottish Highlands. It was ruled in monarchic fashion by the Commander-in-Chief, or Commanders-in-Chief, of the armies. The title for the Commander-in-Chief was

"Imperator''_whence we get our word Emperor_and therefore we talk of that State as the "Roman Empire.'' What the emperor or associated emperors (there had been two of them according to the latest scheme, each with a coadjutor, making four, but these soon coalesced into one supreme head and unique emperor) declared themselves to be, that was the attitude of the empire officially as a whole. The emperors and therefore the whole official scheme dependent on them had been anti-Christian during the growth of the Catholic Church in the midst of Roman and Greek pagan society. For nearly 300 years they and the official scheme of that society had regarded the increasingly powerful Catholic Church as an alien and very dangerous menace to the traditions and therefore to the strength of the old Greek and Roman pagan world. The Church was, as it were, a state within a state, possessing her own supreme officials, the bishops, and her own organization, which was of a highly developed and powerful kind. She was ubiquitous. She stood in strong contrast with the old world into which she had thrust herself. What would be the life of the one would be the death of the other. The old world defended itself through the action of the last pagan emperors. They launched many persecutions against the Church, ending in one final and very drastic persecution which failed. The Catholic cause was at first supported by, and at last openly joined by, a man who conquered all other rivals and established himself as supreme monarch over the whole State: the Emperor Constantine the Great ruling from Constantinople, the city which he had founded and called "New Rome.'' After this the central office of the Empire was Christian. By the critical date A.D. 325, not quite three centuries after Pentecost, the Catholic Church had become the official, or at any rate the Palace, Religion of the Empire, and so remained (with one very brief exceptional interval) as long as the empire stood.[2] But it must not be imagined that the majority of men as yet adhered to the Christian religion, even in the Greek speaking East. They certainly were not of that religion by anything like a majority in the Latin speaking West. As in all great changes throughout history the parties at issue were minorities inspired with different degrees of enthusiasm or lack of enthusiasm. These minorities had various motives and were struggling each to impose its mental attitude upon the wavering and undecided mass. Of these minorities the Christians were the largest and (what was more important) the most eager, the most convinced, and the only fully and strictly organized. The conversion of the Emperor brought over to them large and increasing numbers of the undecided majority. These, perhaps, for the greater part hardly understood the new thing to which they were rallying, and certainly for the most part were not attached to it. But it had finally won politically and that was enough for them. Many regretted the old gods, but thought it not worth while to risk anything in their defence. Very many more cared nothing for what was left of the old gods and not much more for the new Christian fashions. Meanwhile there was a strong minority remaining of highly intelligent and determined pagans. They had on their side not only the traditions of a wealthy governing class but they had also the great bulk of the best writers and,

of course, they also had to strengthen them the recent memories of their long dominance over society. There was yet another element of that world, separate from all the rest, and one which it is extremely important for us to understand: the Army. Why it is so important for us to understand the position of the Army will be described in a moment. When the power of Arianism was manifested in those first years of the official Christian Empire and its universal government throughout the Graeco-Roman world, Arianism became the nucleus or centre of many forces which would be, of themselves, indifferent to its doctrine. It became the rallying point for many strongly surviving traditions from the older world: traditions not religious, but intellectual, social, moral, literary and all the rest of it. We might put it vividly enough in modern slang by saying that Arianism, thus vigorously present in the new great discussions within the body of the Christian Church when first that Church achieved official support and became the official religion of the Empire, attracted all the "high-brows,'' at least half the snobs and nearly all the sincere idealistic tories_the "die-hards''_whether nominally Christian or not. It attracted, as we know, great numbers of those who <were> definitely Christian. But it was also the rallying point of these non-Christian forces which were of such great importance in the society of the day. A great number of the old noble families were reluctant to accept the social revolution implied by the triumph of the Christian Church. They naturally sided with a movement which they instinctively felt to be spiritually opposed to the life and survival of that Church and which carried with it an atmosphere of social superiority over the populace. The Church relied upon and was supported at the end by the masses. Men of old family tradition and wealth found the Arian more sympathetic than the ordinary Catholic and a better ally for gentlemen. Many intellectuals were in the same position. These had not pride of family and old social traditions from the past, but they had pride of culture. They remembered with regret the former prestige of the pagan philosophers. They thought that this great revolution from paganism to Catholicism would destroy the old cultural traditions and their own cultural position. The mere snobs, who are always a vast body in any society_that is, the people who have no opinions of their own but who follow what they believe to be the honorific thing of the moment_would be divided. Perhaps the majority of them would follow the official court movement and attach themselves openly to the new religion. But there would always be a certain number who would think it more "<chic>,'' more "the thing'' to profess sympathy with the old pagan traditions, the great old pagan families, the long inherited and venerable pagan culture and literature and all the rest of it. All these reinforced the Arian movement because it was destructive of Catholicism. Arianism had yet another ally and the nature of that alliance is so subtle that it requires very careful examination. It had for ally the tendency of government in an absolute monarchy to be half afraid of emotions present in the minds of the people and especially in the poorer people:

emotions which if they spread and became enthusiastic and captured the mass of the people might become too strong to be ruled and would have to be bowed to. There is here a difficult paradox but one important to be recognized. Absolute government, especially in the hands of one man, would seem, on the surface, to be opposed to popular government. The two sound contradictory to those who have not seen absolute monarchy at work. To those who have, it is just the other way. Absolute government is the support of the masses against the power of wealth in the hands of a few, or the power of armies in the hands of a few. Therefore one might imagine that the imperial power of Constantinople would have had sympathy with the popular Catholic masses rather than with the intellectuals and the rest who followed Arianism. But we must remember that while absolute government has for its very cause of existence the defence of the masses against the powerful few, yet it likes to rule. It does not like to feel that there is in the State a rival to its own power. It does not like to feel that great decisions may be imposed by organizations other than its own official organization. That is why even the most Christian emperors and their officials always had at the back of their minds, during the first lifetime of the Arian movement, a potential sympathy with Arianism, and that is why this potential sympathy in some cases appears as actual sympathy and as a public declaration of Arianism on their part. There was yet one more ally to Arianism through which it almost triumphed_the Army. In order to understand how powerful such an ally was we must appreciate what the Roman Army meant in those days and of what it was composed. The Army was, of course, in mere numbers, only a fraction of society. We are not certain what those numbers were; at the most they may have come to half a million_they were probably a good deal less. But to judge by numbers in the matter would be ridiculous. The Army was normally half, or more than half, the State. The Army was the true cement, to use one metaphor, the framework to use another metaphor, the binding force and the support and the very material <self> of the Roman Empire in that fourth century; it had been so for centuries before and was to remain so for further generations. It is absolutely essential to understand this point, for it explains three-fourths of what happened, not only in the case of the Arian heresy but of everything else between the days of Marius (under whose administration the Roman Army first became professional), and the Mohammedan attack upon Europe, that is, from more than a century before the Christian era to the early seventh century. The social and political position of the Army explains all those seven hundred years and more. The Roman Empire was a military state. It was not a civilian state. Promotion to power was through the Army. The conception of glory and success, the attainment of wealth in many cases, in nearly all cases the attainment of political power, depended on the Army in those days, just as it depends upon money-lending, speculation, caucuses, manipulation of votes, bosses and newspapers nowadays.

The Army had originally consisted of Roman citizens, all of whom were Italians. Then as the power of the Roman State spread it took in auxiliary troops, people following local chieftains, and affiliated to the Roman military system and even recruited its regular ranks from up and down the Empire in every province. There were many Gauls_that is Frenchmen_in the Army, many Spaniards, and so forth, before the first one hundred years of the Empire had run out. In the next two hundred years_that is, in the two hundred years A.D. 100-300, leading up to the Arian heresy_the Army had become more and more recruited from what we call "Barbarians,'' a term which meant not savages but people outside the strict limits of the Roman Empire. They were easier to discipline, they were much cheaper to hire than citizens were. They were also less used to the arts and comforts of civilization than the citizens within the frontiers. Great numbers of them were German, but there were many Slavs and a good many Moors and Arabs and Saracens and not a few Mongols even, drifting in from the East. This great body of the Roman Army was strictly bound together by its discipline, but still more by its professional pride. It was a long service army. A man belonged to it from his adolescence to his middle age. No one else except the Army had any physical power. There could be no question of resisting it by force, and it was in a sense the government. Its commander-in-chief was the absolute monarch of the whole state. <Now the army went solidly Arian>. That is the capital mark of the whole affair. But for the Army, Arianism would never have meant what it did. With the Army_and the Army wholeheartedly on its side_Arianism all but triumphed and managed to survive even when it represented a little more than the troops and their chief officers. It was true that a certain number of German troops from outside the Empire had been converted by Arian missionaries at a moment when high society was Arian. But that was not the main reason that the Army as a whole went Arian. The Army went Arian because it felt Arianism to be the distinctive thing which made it superior to the civilian masses, just as Arianism was a distinctive thing which made the intellectual feel superior to the popular masses. The soldiers, whether of barbaric or civilian recruitment, felt sympathy with Arianism for the same reason that the old pagan families felt sympathy with Arianism. The army then, and especially the Army chiefs, backed the new heresy for all they were worth, and it became a sort of test of whether you were somebody_a soldier as against the despised civilians_or no. One might say that there had arisen a feud between the Army chiefs on the one hand and the Catholic bishops on the other. Certainly there was a division_an official severence between the Catholic populace in towns, the Catholic peasantry in the country and the almost universally Arian soldier; and the enormous effect of this junction between the new heresy and the Army we shall see at work in all that follows. Now that we have seen what the spirit of Arianism was and what forces were in its favour, let us see how it got its name. The movement for denying the full Godhead of Christ and making Him a creature took its title from one Areios (in the Latin form Arius), a Greek-speaking African cleric rather older than

Constantine, and already famous as a religious force some years before Constantine's victories and first imperial power. Remember that Arius was only a climax to a long movement. What was the cause of his success? Two things combined. First, the momentum of all that came before him. Second, the sudden release of the Church by Constantine. To this should be added undoubtedly something in Arius' own personality. Men of this kind who become leaders do so because they have some personal momentum from their own past impelling them. They would not so become unless there were something in themselves. I think we may take it that Arius had the effect he had through a convergence of forces. There was a great deal of ambition in him, such as you will find in all heresiarchs. There was a strong element of rationalism. There was also in him enthusiasm for what he believed to be the truth. His theory was certainly not his own original discovery, but he made it his own; he identified it with his name. Further, he was moved to a dogged resistance against people whom he thought to be persecuting him. He suffered from much vanity, as do nearly all reformers. On the top of all this a rather thin simplicity, "commonsense,'' which at once appeals to multitudes. But he would never have had his success but for something eloquent about him and a driving power. He was already a man of position, probably from the Cyrenaica (now an Italian colony in North Africa, east of Tripoli), though he was talked of as being Alexandrian, because it was in Alexandria that he lived. He had been a disciple of the greatest critic of his time, the martyr Lucian of Antioch. In the year 318 he was presiding over the Church of Bucalis in Alexandria, and enjoyed the high favour of the Bishop of the City, Alexander. Arius went over from Egypt to Caesarea in Palestine, spreading his already well-known set of rationalizing, Unitarian ideas with zeal. Some of the eastern Bishops began to agree with him. It is true that the two main Syrian Bishoprics, Antioch and Jerusalem, stood out; but apparently most of the Syrian hierarchy inclined to listen to Arius. When Constantine became the master of the whole Empire in 325, Arius appealed to the new master of the world. The great Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, had excommunicated him, but reluctantly. The old heathen Emperor Licinius had protected the new movement. A battle of vast importance was joined. Men did not know of what importance it was, violently though their emotions were excited. Had this movement for rejecting the full divinity of Our Lord gained the victory, all our civilization would have been other than what it has been from that day to this. We all know what happens when an attempt to simplify and rationalize the mysteries of the Faith succeeds in any society. We have before us now the ending experiment of the Reformation, and the aged but still very vigorous Mohammedan heresy, which may perhaps appear with renewed vigour in the future. Such rationalistic efforts against the creed produce a gradual social degradation following on the loss of that direct link between human nature and

God which is provided by the Incarnation. Human dignity is lessened. The authority of Our Lord is weakened. He appears more and more as a man_perhaps a myth. The substance of Christian life is diluted. It wanes. What began as Unitarianism ends as Paganism. To settle the quarrel by which all Christian society was divided, a council was ordered by the Emperor to meet, in A.D. 325, at the town of Nicaea, fifty miles from the capital, on the Asiatic side of the Straits. The Bishops were summoned to convene there from the whole Empire, even from districts outside the Empire where Christian missionaries had planted the Faith. The great bulk of those who came were from the Eastern Empire, but the West was represented, and, what was of the first importance, delegates arrived from the Primatial See of Rome; but for their adherence the decrees of the Council would not have held. As it was their presence gave full validity to these Decrees. The reaction against the innovation of Arius was so strong that at this Council of Nicaea he was overwhelmed. In that first great defeat, when the strong vital tradition of Catholicism had asserted itself and Arius was condemned, the creed which his followers had drawn up was trampled under-foot as a blasphemy, but the spirit behind that creed and behind that revolt was to re-arise. It re-arose at once, and it can be said that Arianism was actually strengthened by its first superficial defeat. This paradox was due to a cause you will find at work in many forms of conflict. The defeated adversary learns from his first rebuff the character of the thing he has attacked; he discovers its weak points; he learns how his opponent may be confused and into what compromises that opponent may be led. He is therefore better prepared after his check than he was at the first onslaught. So it was with Arianism. In order to understand the situation we must appreciate the point that Arianism, founded like all heresies on an error in doctrine_that is on something which can be expressed in a dead formula of mere words_soon began to live, like all heresies at their beginning, with a vigorous new life and character and savour of its own. The quarrel which filled the third century from 325 onwards for a lifetime was not after its first years a quarrel between opposing forms of words the difference between which may appear slight; it became very early in the struggle a quarrel between opposing spirits and characters: a quarrel between two opposing <personalities>, such as human personalities are: on the one side the Catholic temper and tradition, on the other a soured, proud temper, which would have destroyed the Faith. Arianism learned from its first heavy defeat at Nicaea to compromise on forms, on the wording of doctrine, so that it might preserve, and spread with less opposition, its heretical spirit. The first conflict had turned on the use of a Greek word which means "of the same substance with.'' The Catholics, affirming the full Godhead of Our Lord, insisted on the use of this word, which implied that the Son was of the same Divine substance as the Father; that He was of the same Being: i.e., Godship. It was thought sufficient to present this word as a test. The Arians_it was thought_would always refuse to accept the word and could thus be distinguished from the Orthodox and rejected. But many Arians were prepared to compromise by accepting the mere word and denying the

spirit in which it should be read. They were willing to admit that Christ was of the Divine essence, but not fully God; not uncreated. When the Arians began this new policy of verbal compromise, the Emperor Constantine and his successors regarded that policy as an honest opportunity for reconciliation and reunion. The refusal of the Catholics to be deceived became, in the eyes of those who thought thus, mere obstinacy; and in the eyes of the Emperor, factious rebellion and inexcusable disobedience. "Here are you people, who call yourself the only real Catholics, prolonging and needlessly embittering a mere faction-fight. Because you have the popular names behind you, you feel yourselves the masters of your fellows. Such arrogance is intolerable. "The other side have accepted your main point; why cannot you now settle the quarrel and come together again? By holding out you split society into two camps; you disturb the peace of the Empire, and are as criminal as you are fanatical.'' That is what the official world tended to put forward and honestly believed. The Catholics answered: "The heretics have <not> accepted our main point. They have subscribed to an Orthodox phrase, but they interpret that phrase in an heretical fashion. They will repeat that Our Lord is of Divine nature, but <not> that he is fully God, for they still say He was created. Therefore we will not allow them to enter our communion. To do so would be to endanger the vital principle by which the Church exists, the prin ciple of the Incarnation, and the Church is essential to the Empire and Mankind.'' At this point, there entered the battle that personal force which ultimately won the victory for Catholicism: St. Athanasius. It was the tenacity and single aim of St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, the great Metropolitan See of Egypt, which decided the issue. He enjoyed a position of advantage, for Alexandria was the second most important town in the Eastern Empire and, as a Bishopric, one of the first four in the world. He further enjoyed popular backing, which never failed him, and which made his enemies hesitate to take extreme measures against him. But all this would not have sufficed had not the man himself been what he was. At the time when he sat at the Council of Nicaea in 325 he was still a young man_probably not quite thirty; and he only sat there as Deacon, although already his strength and eloquence were remarkable. He lived to be seventy-six or seventy-seven years of age, dying in A.D. 373, and during nearly the whole of that long life he maintained with inflexible energy the full Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. When the first compromise of Arianism was suggested, Athanasius was already Archbishop of Alexandria. Constantine ordered him to re-admit Arius to Communion. He refused. It was a step most perilous because all men admitted the full power of the Monarch over Life and Death, and regarded rebellion as the worst of crimes. Athanasius was also felt to be outrageous and extravagant, because opinion in the official world, among men of social influence, and throughout the Army, upon which everything then reposed, was strong that the compromise ought to be accepted. Athanasius was exiled to Gaul, but Athanasius in exile was

even more formidable than Athanasius at Alexandria. His presence in the West had the effect of reinforcing the strong Catholic feeling of all that part of the Empire. He was recalled. The sons of Constantine, who succeeded one after the other to the Empire, vacillated between the policy of securing popular support_which was Catholic_and of securing the support of the Army_which was Arian. Most of all did the Court lean towards Arianism because it disliked the growing power of the organized Catholic Clergy, rival to the lay power of the State. The last and longest lived of Constantine's sons and successors, Constantius, became very definitely Arian. Athanasius was exiled over and over again but the Cause of which he was champion was growing in strength. When Constantius died in 361, he was succeeded by a nephew of Constantine's, Julian the Apostate. This Emperor went over to the large surviving Pagan body and came near to reestablishing Paganism; for the power of an individual Emperor was in that day overwhelming. But he was killed in battle against the Persians and his successor, Jovian, was definitely Catholic. However, the see-saw still went on. In 367, St. Athanasius, being then an old man of at least seventy years of age, the Emperor Valens exiled him for the fifth time. Finding that the Catholic forces were now too strong he later recalled him. By this time Athanasius had won his battle. He died as the greatest man of the Roman world. Of such value are sincerity and tenacity, combined with genius. But the Army remained Arian, and what we have to follow in the next generations is the lingering death of Arianism in the Latin-speaking Western part of the Empire; lingering because it was supported by the Chief Generals in command of the Western districts, but doomed because the people as a whole had abandoned it. How it thus died out I shall now describe. It is often said that all heresies die. This may be true in the very long run but it is not necessarily true within any given period of time. It is not even true that the vital principle of a heresy necessarily loses strength with time. The fate of the various heresies has been most various; and the greatest of them, Mohammedanism, is not only still vigorous but is more vigorous over the districts which it originally occupied than is its Christian rival, and much more vigorous and much more co-extensive with its own society than is the Catholic Church with our Western civilization which is the product of Catholicism. Arianism, however, was one of those heresies which did die. The same fate has overtaken Calvinism in our own day. This does not mean that the general moral effect or atmosphere of the heresy disappears from among men, but that its creative doctrines are no longer believed in, so that its vitality is lost and must ultimately disappear. Geneva today, for instance, is morally a Calvinist city, although it has a Catholic minority sometimes very nearly equal to half its total numbers, sometimes actually becoming (I believe) a slight majority. But there is not one man of a hundred in Geneva today who accepts Calvin's highly defined theology. The doctrine is dead; its effects on society survive.

Arianism died in two fashions, corresponding to the two halves into which the Roman Empire_which was in those days, for its citizens, the whole civilized world_fell. The Eastern half had Greek for its official language and it was governed from Constantinople, which was also called Byzantium. It included Egypt, North Africa, as far as Cyrene, the East Coast of the Adriatic, the Balkans, Asia Minor, Syria as far (roughly) as the Euphrates. It was in this part of the Empire that Arianism had sprung up and proved so powerful that between A.D. 300 and A.D. 400 it very nearly conquered. The Imperial Court had wavered between Arianism and Catholicism with one momentary lapse back into paganism. But before the century was over, that is well before the year A.D. 400, the Court was definitely Catholic and seemed certain to remain so. As I explained above, although the Emperor and his surrounding officials (which I have called "the Court'') were theoretically all powerful (for the constitution was an absolute monarchy and men could not think in any other terms in those days), yet, at least as powerful, and less subject to change, was the army on which the whole of that society reposed. And the army meant the generals; the generals of the army were for the most part, and permanently, Arian. When the central power, the Emperor and his officials, had become permanently Catholic the spirit of the military was still in the main Arian, and that is why the underlying ideas of Arianism_that is, the doubt whether Our Lord was or could be really God_survived after formal Arianism had ceased to be preached and accepted among the populace. On this account, because the spirit which had underlain Arianism (the doubt on the full divinity of Christ) went on, there arose a number of what may be called "derivatives'' from Arianism; or "secondary forms'' of Arianism. Men continued to suggest that there was only one nature in Christ, the end of which suggestion would necessarily have been a popular idea that Christ was only a man. When that failed to capture the official machine, though it continued to affect millions of people, there was another suggestion made that there was only one Will in Christ, not a human will and a divine will, but a single will. Before these there had been a revival of the old idea, previous to Arianism and upheld by early heretics in Syria, that the divinity only came into Our Lord during His lifetime. He was born no more than a man, and Our Lady was the mother of no more than a man_and so on. In all their various forms and under all their technical names (Monophysites, Monothelites, Nestorians, the names of the principal three_and there were any number of others) these movements throughout the Eastern or Greek half of the Empire were efforts at escaping from, or rationalizing, the full mystery of the Incarnation; and their survival depended on the jealousy felt by the army for the civilian society round it, and on the lingering remains of pagan hostility to the Christian mysteries as a whole. Of course they depended also on the eternal human tendency to rationalize and to reject what is beyond the reach of reason.

But there was another factor in the survival of the secondary effects of Arianism in the East. It was the factor which is called today in European politics "Particularism,'' that is, the tendency of a part of the state to separate itself from the rest and to live its own life. When this feeling becomes so strong that men are willing to suffer and die for it, it takes the form of a Nationalist revolution. An example of such was the feeling of the southern Slavs against the Austrian Empire which feeling gave rise to the Great War. Now this discontent of provinces and districts with the Central Power by which they had been governed increased as time went on in the Eastern Empire; and a convenient way of expressing it was to favour any kind of criticism against the official religion of the Empire. That is why great bodies in the East (and notably a large proportion of the people in the Egyptian province) favoured the Monophysite heresy. It expressed their dissatisfaction with the despotic rule of Constantinople and with the taxes imposed upon them and with the promotion given to those near the court at the expense of the provincials_and all the rest of their grievances. Thus the various derivatives from Arianism survived in the Greek Eastern half of the Empire, although the official world had long gone back to Catholicism. This also explains why you find all over the East today large numbers of schismatic Christians, mainly Monophysite, sometimes Nestorian, sometimes of lesser communities, whom not all these centuries of Mohammedan oppression have been able to unite with the main Christian body. What put an end, not to these sects, for they still exist, but to their <importance>, was the sudden rise of that enormous force, antagonistic to the whole Greek world_Islam: the new Mohammedan heresy out of the desert, which rapidly became a counter-religion; the implacable enemy of all the older Christian bodies. The death of Arianism in the East was the swamping of the mass of the Christian Eastern Empire by Arabian conquerors. In the face of that disaster the Christians who remained independent reacted towards orthodoxy as their one chance for survival, and that is how even the secondary effects of Arianism died out in the countries free from subjugation to the Mohammedans in the East. In the West the fortunes of Arianism are quite different. In the West Arianism died altogether. It ceased to be. It left no derivatives to carry on a lingering life. The story of this death of Arianism in the West is commonly misunderstood because most of our history has been written hitherto on a misconception of what European Christian society was like in Western Europe during the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries, that is, between the time when Constantine left Rome and set up the new capital of the Empire, Byzantium, and the date when, in the early seventh century (from A.D. 633 onwards), the Mohammedan invasion burst upon the world. What we are commonly told is that the Western Empire was overrun by savage tribes called "Goths'' and "Visigoths'' and "Vandals'' and "Suevi'' and "Franks'' who "conquered'' the Western Roman Empire_that is, Britain and Gaul and the civilized part of Germany on the Rhine and the upper Danube, Italy, North Africa, and Spain. The official language of all this part was the Latin language. The Mass was said in Latin,

whereas in most of the Eastern Empire it was said in Greek. The laws were in Latin, and all the acts of administration were in Latin. There was no barbarian conquest, but there was a continuation of what had been going on for centuries, an infiltration of people from outside the Empire into the Empire because within the Empire they could get the advantages of civilization. There was also the fact that the army on which everything depended was at last almost entirely recruited from barbarians. As society gradually got old and it was found difficult to administer distant places, to gather the taxes from far away into the central treasury, or to impose an edict over remote regions, the government of those regions tended to be taken over more and more by the leading officers of the barbarian tribes, who were now Roman soldiers; that is, their chieftains and leaders. In this way were formed local governments in France and Spain and even Italy itself which, while they still felt themselves to be a part of the Empire, were practically independent. For instance, when it became difficult to govern Italy from so far off as Constantinople, the Emperor sent a general to govern in his place and when this general became too strong he sent another general to supersede him. This second general (Theodoric) was also, like all the others, a barbarian chief by birth, though he was the son of one who had been taken into the Roman service and had himself been brought up at the Court of the Emperor. This second general became in his turn practically independent. The same thing happened in southern France and in Spain. The local generals took over power. They were barbarian chiefs who handed over this power, that is, the nominating to official posts and the collecting of taxes, to their descendants. Then there was the case of North Africa_what we call today Morocco, Algiers and Tunis. Here the quarrelling factions, all of which were disconnected with direct government from Byzantium, called in a group of Slav soldiers who had migrated into the Roman Empire and had been taken over as a military force. They were called the Vandals; and they took over the government of the province which worked from Carthage. Now all these local governments of the West (the Frankish general and his group of soldiers in northern France, the Visi-gothic one in southern France and Spain, the Burgundian one in southeastern France, the other Gothic one in Italy, the Vandal one in North Africa) were at issue with the official government of the Empire on the point of religion. The Frankish one in north-eastern France and what we call today, Belgium, was still pagan. All the others were Arian. I have explained above what this meant. It was not so much a doctrinal feeling as a social one. The Gothic general and the Vandal general who were chiefs over their own soldiers felt it was grander to be Arians than to be Catholics like the mass of the populace. They were the army; and the army was too grand to accept the general popular religion. It was a feeling very much like that which you may see surviving in Ireland still, in places, and which was universal there until quite lately: a feeling that "ascendency'' went properly with anti-Catholicism.

Since there is no stronger force in politics than this force of social superiority, it took a very long time for the little local courts to drop their Arianism. I call them little because, although they collected taxes from very wide areas, it was merely as administrators. The actual numbers were small compared with the mass of the Catholic population. While the governors and their courts in Italy and Spain and Gaul and Africa still clung with pride to their ancient Arian name and character, two things, one sudden, the other gradual, militated against both their local power and their Arianism. The first, sudden, thing was the fact that the general of the Franks who had ruled in Belgium conquered with his very small force another local general in northern France_a man who governed a district lying to the west of him. Both armies were absurdly small, each of about 4,000 men; and it is a very good example of what the times were like that the beaten army, after the battle, at once joined the victors. It also shows what times were like that it seemed perfectly natural for a Roman general commanding no more than 4,000 men to begin with, and only 8,000 men after the first success, to take over the administration_taxes, courts of law and all the imperial forms_over a very wide district. He took over the great mass of northern France just as his colleagues, with similar forces, took over official action in Spain and Italy and elsewhere. Now it so happened that this Frankish general (whose real name we hardly know, because it has come down to us in various distorted forms, but best known as "Clovis'') was a pagan: something exceptional and even scandalous in the military forces of the day when nearly all important people had become Christians. But this scandal proved a blessing in disguise to the Church, for the man Clovis being a pagan and never having been Arian, it was possible to convert him directly to Catholicism, the popular religion; and when he had accepted Catholicism he at once had behind him the whole force of the millions of citizens and the organized priesthood and Bishoprics of the Church. He was the one popular general; all the others were at issue with their subjects. He found it easy to levy great bodies of armed men because he had popular feeling with them. He took over the government of the Arian generals in the South, easily defeating them, and his levies became the biggest of the military forces in the Western Latin-speaking Empire. He was not strong enough to take over Italy and Spain, still less Africa, but he shifted the centre of gravity away from the decaying Arian tradition of the Roman army_now no more than small dwindling groups. So much for the sudden blow which was struck against Arianism in the West. The gradual process which hastened the decay of Arianism was of a different kind. With every year that passed it was becoming, in the decay of society, more and more difficult to collect taxes, to keep up a revenue, and therefore to repair roads and harbours and public buildings and keep order and do all the rest of public work. With this financial decay of government and the social disintegration accompanying it the little groups who were nominally the local governments, lost their prestige. In, say, the year 450 it was a fine thing to be an Arian in Paris or Toledo or Carthage or Arles or Toulouse or Ravenna; but 100 years later, by say, 550, the social prestige of Arianism had gone. It paid

everybody who wanted to "get on'' to be a Catholic; and the dwindling little official Arian groups were despised even when they acted savagely in their disappointment, as they did in Africa. They lost ground. The consequence was that after a certain delay all the Arian governments in the West either became Catholic (as in the case of Spain) or, as happened in much of Italy and the whole of North Africa, they were taken over again by the direct rule of the Roman Empire from Byzantium. This last experiment did not continue long. There was another body of barbarian soldiers, still Arian, who came in from the north-eastern provinces and took over the government in northern and central Italy and shortly afterwards the Mo hammedan invasion swept over North Africa and ultimately over Spain and even penetrated into Gaul. Direct Roman administration, so far from surviving Western Europe, died out. Its last effective existence in the South was swamped by Islam. But long before this happened Arianism in the West was dead. This is the fashion in which the first of the great heresies which threatened at one moment to undermine and destroy the whole of Catholic society disappeared. The process had taken almost 300 years and it is interesting to note that so far as doctrines are concerned, about that space of time, or a little more, sufficed to take the substance out of the various main heresies of the Protestant Reformers. They, too, had almost triumphed in the middle of the sixteenth century, when Calvin, their chief figure, all but upset the French monarchy. They also had wholly lost their vitality by the middle of the nineteenth_300 years.

ENDNOTES 1. For the discussion on the date of the Crucifixion, Resurrection and Pentecost I must refer my readers to Dr. Arendzen's clear and learned work, ``Men and Manners in the time of Christ'' (Sheed and Ward). From the evidence, which has been fully examined, it is clear that the date is not earlier than 29 A.D., and may possibly be a few years later, while the most widely accepted traditional date is 33 A. D. 2. It is not easy to establish the exact point after which the Official Religion of the Roman State, or even of the Empire, is Christian. Constantine's victory at the Milvian bridge was in the autumn of 312. The Edict of Milan, issued by himself and Licinius, which gave toleration to the practice of the Christian religion throughout the Empire, was issued early in the following year, 313. When Constantine had become the sole Emperor he soon lived as a Catechumen of the Christian Church, yet he remained head of the old Pagan religious organization as Pontifex Maximus. He was not baptized until the eve of his death, in 337. And though he summoned and presided over gatherings of Christian Bishops, they were still but a separate body in a society mainly Pagan. Constantine's own son and successor had sympathies with the old dying Paganism. The Senate did not change for a lifetime. For active official destruction of the lingering Pagan

worship men had to wait till Theodosius at the very end of the century. The whole affair covers one long human life: over eighty years. ------------------------------------------------------------------The electronic form of this document is copyrighted. Copyright (c) Trinity Communications 1994. Provided courtesy of: The Catholic Resource Network Trinity Communications PO Box 3610 Manassas, VA 22110 Voice: 703-791-2576 Fax: 703-791-4250 Data: 703-791-4336 The Catholic Resource Network is a Catholic online information and service system. To browse CRNET or join, set your modem to 8 data bits, 1 stop bit and no parity, and call 1-703-791-4336.

from http://www.reformed.com/pub/christ.htm Is Jesus Christ God? By: Brian Schwertley

The most important question facing individuals, families and nations is not How do we stop the AIDS epidemic? How do we arrest global warming? How do we stimulate economic growth? or even How do we eliminate poverty? The most important question is: What do you think of Jesus Christ? (cf. Mt. 22:42). Without a proper understanding of the person and work of Jesus Christ, and without belief and trust in and submission to Jesus Christ, individuals, families and nations are doomed to failure in history and eternal judgment in the hereafter. It is the purpose of this booklet to prove from the Scripture that Jesus Christ is God. For if the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is very God of very God, then we must without question submit to Christs authority. We must place our trust in Christ alone for our salvation, and we must offer worship and prayer to Him, for He alone is worthy to receive honor and glory and blessing (Rev. 5:12). There are many passages in the Bible which specifically refer to Jesus Christ as God. In fact, the whole New Testament is based upon the thought that there is...[an] essential unity between Jesus Christ and the covenant God of Israel. [1] Old Testament Passages

Isaiah 7:14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Immanuel literally means God with us). Isaiah 9:6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end.... Jeremiah 23:5-6Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Christs name in Hebrew is YHWH Tsidkenu, Jehovah Our Righteousness. Micah 5:2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Christ has always existed because He is not a created being; He is God Almighty who has existed from everlasting. Malachi 3:1-2Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiners fire, and like fullers soap. Gods temple is Christs temple. Christ comes as an all-powerful judge. Psalm 45:1, 6-7I speak of the things which I have made touching the king.... Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee.... The Hebrew word translated anointed is the verb form of the noun Messiah. Psalm 110:1-3The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.... The LORD (Jehovah) will subdue all Christs enemies. Yet Christs rod and Christs power will subdue all enemies. Christs rule and power are clearly equal to Gods. See Psalm 2 where a similar theme is discussed: Serve the LORD [Jehovah] with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way... (vv. 11-12). Note how the Son is set poetically in parallel with Jehovah. New Testament Passages Matthew 1:23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. John 1:1-3, 14In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him

was not any thing made that was made.... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. The late New Testament Greek scholar Colwell formulated a rule which clearly states that a definite predicate nominative (in this case theos meaning God) never takes an article when it precedes the verb (was) as we find in John 1:1. It is therefore easy to see that no article is needed for theos (God), and to translate it a god is both incorrect grammar and poor Greek, since theos is a predicate nominative of was in the third sentence-clause of the verse and must refer back to the subject, Word (logos). Christ, then, if He is the Word made flesh (Jn. 1:14), can be no one else except God, unless the Greek text, and consequently Gods Word, be denied. [2] John 1:18No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 20:27-28Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Romans 9:6Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen (NKJV). Philippians 2:5-8Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Who was in the form of God are his [the Apostle Pauls] words: and they are words than which no others could be chosen which would more explicitly or with more directness assert the deity of...Jesus Christ.... Let us remember that the phraseology which Paul here employs was the popular usage of his day, though first given general vogue by the Aristotelian philosophy: and that it was accordingly the most natural language for strongly asserting the deity of Christ which could suggest itself to him.... Form, in a word, is equivalent to our phrase specific character.... With God...the form is that body of qualities which distinguish Him from all other spiritual beings, which constitute Him God, and without which He would not be God. What Paul asserts, then, when he says that Christ Jesus existed in the form of God, is that He had all those characterizing qualities which make God God, the presence of which constitutes God, and in the absence of which God does not exist. He who is in the form of God is God. [3] Colossians 1:15-16Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible.... When the Apostle Paul says that Christ is the firstborn over all creation, he does not mean that Christ is the first created being. For he goes on to explain that Jesus Christ created everything in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. Jesus Christ could not create Himself. The idea among

various cults that Christ is the first created being is an impossible absurdity. Colossians 2:8-10Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power. 1 Timothy 1:16-17Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. 1 Timothy 2:3-4For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 6:14-16...the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. Titus 1:3But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour. Titus 2:10...showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. Titus 2:13Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (NKJV). Hebrews 1:1-3God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. Hebrews 1:8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Jude 25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen. Jesus Christ Clearly Taught His Own Divinity

Revelation 21:6-7And he [Jesus Christ] said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. John 8:57-59Then the Jews said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM. Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple... (NKJV). John 5:17-26But Jesus answered them, My Father has been working until now, and I have been working. Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. Then Jesus answered and said to them,... For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.... For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself (NKJV). John 10:28-39And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Fathers hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them,... If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand. Mark 2:5-11When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?... [Jesus] said unto them, But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house (cf. Lk. 5:20-24). The scribes theology was correct: Who can forgive sins but God only? Jesus didnt disagree with their conclusion; rather, through the miraculous healing He proved that He in fact was God and had the authority to forgive sins. The Spirit-inspired writers of the New Testament applied Old Testament passages which specifically refer God-Jehovah to Jesus Christ; therefore, Jesus must be God-Jehovah. Old Testament New Testament

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God (Isa. 40:3).

For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight (Mt. 3:3). He [John the Baptist] will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord [Jesus Christ] (Lk. 1:17, NKJV). We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God (Rom. 14:10-11; cf. Phil. 2:10). But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men (Eph. 4:7-8). But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows (Heb. 1:8-9). To the Son he saith,... Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail (Heb. 1:8-12).

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children... (Mal. 4:5-6)

....I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear (Isa. 45:22-23). The Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place. Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them (Ps. 68:17-18). Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows (Ps. 45:6-7). Hear my prayer, O LORD [Jehovah].... The heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end (Ps. 102:1, 25-27).

Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee (Dt. 31:6).

Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee (Heb. 13:5).

The Bible Ascribes Attributes to Jesus Christ Which Can Only be Predicated of God 1. Jesus Christ is all-knowing (omniscient) Matthew 12:25Jesus knew their thoughts. Matthew 27:18For [Jesus] knew that for envy they had delivered Him. Luke 6:8He knew their thoughts. John 2:24-25But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. John 21:17And [Peter] said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Revelation 2:23All the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each of you according to your works (NKJV). 2. Jesus Christ is all-powerful (omnipotent) Ephesians 3:20Now unto him [Christ] that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us. Philippians 3:20-21...the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. Colossians 2:10Ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power. Hebrews 1:3[Jesus Christ is] upholding all things by the word of his power.

Revelation 1:8I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Revelation 2:26-27He who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nationsHe shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the potters vessels shall be broken to piecesas I also have received from My Father (NKJV). 3. Jesus Christ is unchanging (immutable) Hebrews 1:8-12But unto the Son he saith...Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. Hebrews 13:8Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (NKJV). This passage disproves the idea that Jesus is a created being. For if Jesus was created, He was not the same yesterday. Yesterday (past) is contrasted with forever (future), and obviously refers to eternity past. 4. Jesus Christ, as to his divine nature, is everywhere present (omnipresent) Matthew 18:20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. At any given moment there are literally thousands upon thousands of Bible studies, prayer meetings and church services being conducted around the earth. Jesus Christ says that He is present at each gathering. Only God can be at thousands of different places at the same time. Romans 8:10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.... [H]e that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. No created being, no matter how great, can dwell in the millions of Christians throughout the world; it is impossible. But it is not impossible for Jesus Christ who is God. 1 Corinthians 10:4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. Whenever believers partake of the Lords Supper, Jesus Christ is spiritually present. Revelation 2:1These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks. Jesus Christ is presented in Revelation as being present in the churches and being totally aware of each churchs deeds in minute detail. Revelation 3:20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Jesus Christ will personally fellowship with each repentant believer. This would be impossible if He were merely human, for there are millions of Christians spread over the whole globe.

5. Jesus Christ has eternal existence Isaiah 9:6For unto us a child is born,...and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father.... John 1:1-3In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him.... Jesus Christ existed with God prior to creation. John 8:58Jesus said to them, Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM (NKJV). Jesus certainly did not mean He existed as the first created being, because the Jews wanted to stone Him for claiming to be God. Revelation 1:8I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty (cf. Rev. 22:13). 6. Jesus Christ is the Creator The Bible teaches that God created everything that exists, whether spiritual or material. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands (Ac. 17:24). Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created (Rev. 4:11). [Him] that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein... (Rev. 10:6). Yet the Bible also teaches that Jesus Christ created everything. This can only mean that Jesus Christ is God the second Person of the trinity, for only God who is uncreated has the power to create from nothing. The Bible teaches that creation from nothing was an act of the triune God. [4] That explains why Genesis 1:26 says, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Following are some verses of Scripture which teach that Christ is the Creator. John 1:2-3He [Jesus Christ] was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him and without Him nothing was made (NKJV). John 1:10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 1 Corinthians 8:6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Colossians 1:16-17For by him [Jesus Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Hebrews 1:2-3...his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made

the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power.... Hebrews 2:10For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things.... Hebrews 3:3-4For this man [Jesus Christ] was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. 7. Jesus Christ is the Judge of all mankind The Bible teaches that on the last day of this age God will judge all men who ever lived. Then shall the trees of the wood sing out at the presence of the LORD, because he cometh to judge the earth (1 Chr. 16:33). And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened...and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works (Rev. 20:12). Only God is capable of judging all men. God is all-knowing and therefore knows every act. He is all-powerful, and therefore can carry out His punishments. He is perfectly holy and therefore can judge every sin without injustice. Only God who is moral and just in character has the authority to judge the human race. Yet the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ will judge the world. Christ Himself claimed the total authority and jurisdiction over mankind on the final day that can only belong to God. In fact, the judgment seat of God Almighty and the judgment seat of Jesus Christ are one and the same seat. Jesus said, Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord.... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Mt. 7:22-23). The fate of each and every person rests upon Christs decision; He has the power and authority to render sentence and to cast men into hellan authority reserved exclusively to God. [5] Following are some biblical references which unmistakably establish that Jesus Christ is the Judge of all mankind. Matthew 25:31-33, 41When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.... Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. John 12:48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Acts 10:42It is He [Jesus Christ] who was ordained of God to be Judge of the living and the dead (NKJV). Acts 17:31He hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man [Jesus Christ] whom he hath ordained. Romans 2:16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ....

Romans 14:10-12For we shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: As I live, says the LORD [Jehovah], Every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then each of us shall give account of himself to God (NKJV). This passage of Scripture not only presents Christ as Judge, but clearly teaches that on the day of judgment everyone will bow to Christ; that is, everyone will acknowledge that Christ is the LORD God. By introducing his quotation of Isaiah 45:23 with the familiar prophetic formula, As I live, saith the LORD (cf. Num. 14:28, Isa. 49:18, Jer. 22:24, Ezek. 5:11, Zeph. 2:9, etc.), and applying it to Christ, the Apostle Paul self-consciously and deliberately calls Christ Jehovah. Note also that at the Judgment Seat of Christ, everyone will give account of himself to God. This passage is a powerful and unmistakable statement of Christs deity. 2 Corinthians 5:10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 2 Timothy 4:1, 8...the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.... Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. Hebrews 10:30For we know Him who said, Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord. And again, The LORD [Jehovah] will judge His people (NKJV). The Bible Teaches That God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, Proceeds From Both the Father and the Son (Spiration) Matthew 3:11I [John the Baptist] indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Jesus Christ not only has the authority to baptize believers with the Holy Spirit but also to baptize unbelievers into hell-fire. While this passage technically does not deal with spiration, it shows that Christ has the authority of God: only God can send the Holy Spirit to His church. John 15:26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. Romans 8:9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Here Paul equates the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ. Galatians 4:6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Revelation 5:6And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes,

which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. Seven in Scripture often represents completion and perfection. The perfect Holy Spirit of God proceeds from Jesus Christ unto the whole earth. Jesus Christ is Worshiped as God There is probably no sin more condemned in the Bible than that of idolatry. The Bible teaches that we are to worship God alone. Why? Because only God is worthy to be worshiped. Gods law says, Thou shalt have none other gods before me.... Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them (Dt. 5:7-9). When tempted by Satan, Christ said, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve (Lk. 4:8). When the Apostle John fell in worship before one of Gods mighty angels, the angel rebuked him and told him to worship God. And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God (Rev. 22:8-9). When Cornelius the centurion fell in worship before the Apostle Peter, Peter clearly rejected the offer of worship: And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man (Ac. 10:25-26). The contrast with the Lord Jesus Christ is startling: from His birth (Mt. 2:1-2) to His ascension (Lk. 24:51-52), Christ is openly and continuously worshiped by His disciples. Did Jesus reject this worship, as Peter and the angel did? No, Jesus openly accepted and even commended such activity. What could this mean except that That same person who is known to history as Jesus of Nazareth existed, before He became man, from all eternity as infinite, eternal and unchangeable God, the second person of the holy Trinity [6]? Passages in Which Jesus is Worshiped [7] Matthew 2:1-2Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matthew 2:10-11When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him. Matthew 8:2And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. Matthew 9:18While [Jesus] spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. Matthew 14:33Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Matthew 15:25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. Matthew 28:9And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Mark 5:6But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him. Luke 24:51-52And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. John 9:35-38...he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. Hebrews 1:6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. Revelation 5:8-14And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof.... And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. Revelation 15:3-4And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. In Revelation 5:8 the living creatures and elders worship the Lamb (Jesus Christ) and offer Him prayers. In verse 13 Christ is offered the same worship that is given to the Father. In Revelation 15:3-4 the worship of the Lord God Almighty and Jesus Christ the King of the saints are indistinguishable. All nations will come and worship before Jesus Christ (Ps. 22:27-28). The fact that the apostles, and an angel of God, totally rejected worship, while Christ openly accepted it, indicates that the New Testament use of to worship (prosekun_san aut_worshiped Him) is not mere homage to a king but the worship of God Himself. No created being, no matter how great, is allowed to accept worship. Jesus Christ is the Object of Saving Faith John 14:1-6Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.... Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. No angel, prophet or apostle could speak such words; only God can be the object of saving faith.

Christ doesnt just point to God, He points to Himself. When Jesus says, I am the way, the truth, and the life, He declares that He is the foundation of all truth and all life. He is God, who is absolute Truth personified. There are Instances in the Bible Where the Names "Son of God" and "Lord" Indicate Christs Essential Deity 1. Jesus Christ the Son of God Matthew 11:27All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Just think about what these words mean, my friends. They mean that there are mysteries in the person, Jesus, which none but the infinite and eternal God can know. [8] Matthew 14:26, 33-33And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.... And when they [Peter and Jesus] were come into the ship, the wind ceased. Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. Matthew 16:16Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Peters declaration that Jesus is the Son of the living God can mean no less than that, in a unique way, a sense not applicable to any mortal, Jesus is, was and always will be the Son of that God who not only is Himself the only living One, over against all the dead so-called gods of the pagans (Isa. 40:18-31) but also is the only source of life for all that lives. [9] Matthew 26:63-65But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. When Jesus ascribed to Himself the title Son of Man and then openly claimed to be the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14the One who is coming on the clouds of heaven who will judge the nations and have everlasting dominionthe high priest accused Him of blasphemy. Why? Because Christ was claiming for Himself things that the high priest knew could only be attributed to God. Christ claimed to be the divine Son of God. The high priest refused to accept this claim and therefore rejected Christ. [10] 2. The Lord Jesus Christ Luke 2:11For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed; he is the Lord, Lord of all; He is a sovereign prince; nay, He is God, for the Lord, in the Old Testament, answers to Jehovah. He is a Savior, and He will be a Savior to those only that accept Him as their Lord. [11] Luke 3:4-6The voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the LORD [Jehovah], make His paths straight.... And all flesh shall see the salvation of God (NKJV). 1 Corinthians 12:3No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Philippians 2:11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [12] Jesus Christ, therefore, is Lord to Christians in the same sense that Jehovah was Lord to the Hebrews. The usage referred to is altogether peculiar; no mannot Moses, nor Abraham, nor David, nor any of the prophets or apostlesis ever thus prevailingly addressed or invoked as Lord. We have but one Lord; and Jesus Christ is Lord. [13] Jesus Christ and the Trinity The reason that many cults fatally err regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ is because they place sinful, finite human reason above the clear teaching of the Word of God. The Bible consistently sets forth the doctrine of the trinity from Genesis to Revelation. As revelation progresses, the doctrine of the trinity becomes clearer and clearer, until only those who are spiritually blind could deny it. If you do deny the trinity, the Bible becomes an incomprehensible jumble of contradictions. True Christians from the days of the Apostles to the present have believed that there is one God existing in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. There are not three Gods but only one God. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not one-third God each, or parts of God, but are all fully God of one indivisible essence, power and eternity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three manifestations of one God. Each is completely equal, possessing the full divine nature. When the Bible teaches that God is three Persons, it does not mean that there are three individuals but only personal self-distinctions with the Divine essence, which is not only generically, but also numerically one. [14] So when cults say that Jesus was just a man or the first created being, they woefully err. They place their misconceptions of what God must be like above what the Bible clearly teaches. The doctrine of the trinity is hard to comprehend yet it is clearly taught in the Bible and therefore must be believed. When you believe in the triune God of Scripture, all the passages which clearly teach that Christ is God do not have to be mistranslated, twisted and explained away, as the cults do. The Bible says that Christ always existed and that He created the universe. Yet the Bible also teaches that Christ is Gods only begotten Son. Is there a conflict here? Certainly not! For the Bible teaches that Christs unique personal self-distinction is His eternal generation from God the Father. [15] The Atonement and High Priestly Work of Jesus Christ Show His Deity It is no accident that those who reject the divinity of Christ also pervert the doctrine of salvation. Salvation, for those who deny Christs Godhood, is either a mystical, metaphysical experience or something earned through good works. Why do the cults pervert the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ? Because only a divine Christ can truly save His people. Only a divine-human Messiah could render a sacrifice of infinite value, a sacrifice capable of ransoming millions and millions of Gods elect. Also, only the divine-human Messiah has the ability to be a faithful high priest. A finite high priest could not make intercession in Gods heavenly sanctuary for the many millions of Christians who sin and confess their sins daily. Only Jesus Christ who is truly God can hear all our prayers. Only the divine Christ knows all our sins and infirmities, because He is God and knows everything. Jesus Christ who is fully God and fully man is the perfect Mediator between God and man. For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God...being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.... But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them (Heb. 7:l-3, 24-25). Conclusion The fact that Jesus Christ is God, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, is not just an academic or theological issue. Jesus Christ, being the divine Creator, demands our utmost allegiance, obedience, service and worship. The divinity of Christ is a life and deatha heaven or hellissue. A merely human or first-created being cannot save multitudes of sinners. A merely human or first-created being does not have the authority to judge the human race. A finite being should never receive worship, honor and glory. To reject the divinity of Jesus Christ is to reject the clear teaching of Scripture. To reject the divinity of Jesus Christ is to reject the God who exists. If you do not believe that Jesus Christ is God, then you are lost and will be cast into hell. Being a member of a heretical cult is no different in Gods eyes than being a homosexual, murderer or adulterer. God demands that you repent, not just of your sinful behavior but also of your sinful beliefs, thoughts and associations. Set aside your false beliefs and put your trust in the divine Son of God, Jesus Christ.

Footnotes: [1] J. Gresham Machen, The Christian Faith in the Modern World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1936 [1965]), p. 151. Back [2] Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1965), p. 85. Back [3] B. B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950 [1980]), pp. 566-67. Back [4] Some passages that teach that God is the Creator are Gen. 18:25; Dt. 32:36; 1 Sam. 2:10; 1 Chr. 16:33; Ps. 7:8, 9:8, 82:8, 94:2, 96:13, 98:9, 110:6; Jn. 3:12; Rom. 2:16, 3:6; Rev. 20:11-15. Back [5] Machen, p. 172. Back [6] Ibid., p. 134. Back [7] We are to exercise the same faith and confidence in Him that we do in God; yield Him the same obedience, devotion, and homage. We find, therefore, that such is the case from the beginning to the end of the New Testament writings. Christ is the God of the Apostles and early Christians, in the sense that He is the object of all their religious affections. They regarded Him as the person to whom they specially belonged; to whom they were responsible for their moral conduct; to whom they had to account for their sins; for the use of their time and talents; who

was ever present with them, dwelling in them, controlling their inward, as well as their outward life; whose love was the animating principle of their being; in whom they rejoiced as their present joy and as their everlasting portion (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:498). Back [8] Machen, p. 183. Back [9] William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker), p. 643. Back [10] For the title Son of God used in the trinitarian sense, cf. Mt. 21:33-46; 22:41-46 and parallel passages: Jn. 6:69; 8:16, 18, 23; 10:15, 30; 14:20; Rom. 1:3; 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 1:1, etc. Back [11] Matthew Henrys Commentary, loc. cit. Back [12] Cf. Mt. 7:22, 12:36-37; Lk. 5:8; Jn. 20:28; Ac. 2:36. Back [13] Hodge, 1:496. Back [14] L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), p. 87. Back [15] Cf. Mic. 5:2; Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16; 5:17-18, 30, 36; Ac. 13:33; Heb. 1:5. Back

THE HOLY TRINITY


The baptismal formula: "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). One name (God) -- yet three names! The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. The Bible clearly teaches that the Son and the Holy Spirit, as well as the Father are God (John 1:1; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Acts 5:3, 4). It also clearly and forcefully teaches that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; etc.). It teaches that the Three are one a Trinity (Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2). The three persons of the Godhead are, at the same time, noted in such Scriptures as Isaiah 48:16: "I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me." The speaker in this verse is obviously God, and yet He says He has been "sent both by The Lord God (that is, the Father) and by His Spirit (that is, the Holy Spirit). Genesis 1:26 Dios dijo Hagamos al hombre a imagen y semejanza nuestra Gen 3:22: "Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us..." En el Antiguo Testamento se hace referencia a la Trinidad (auque no de un modo muy explcito): (Gnesis 18),donde Dios se aparece a Abraham y le habla; en la narracin se refiere a Dios como uno solo o como tres varones (indistintamente): Vi a tres varones que estaban cerca, al verlos sali corriendo a recibirlos e inclinndose en tierra dijo: Seor, si he hallado gracia ante tus ojos ... Yav Dios dijo a Abraham... y los varones se levantaron... El profeta Isaas ve el cielo y a los querubines que cantan a Dios: santo, santo, santo (Isaas 6,1-3). The New Testament doctrine of the Trinity is evident in such a verse as John 15:26, where the Lord Jesus said: "But when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the Father, He shall testify of me. The Bible teaches that the Holy Ghost is a real person, just as are the Father and the Son. Jesus said: "How be it when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show

you things to come" (John 16:13). El Espiritu Santo es la 3 persona de la Trinidad, porque es tambin Dios: (Hechos 5,3-4): Pedro dijo: Ananas, Porqu Satans llen tu corazn, para mentirle al Espritu Santo?... No mentiste a los hombres (los apstoles) sino a Dios.

From Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm The Blessed Trinity Catholic Encyclopedia on CD-ROM Contains 11,632 articles. Browse off-line, ad-free, printer-friendly. Get it here for only $29.95 This article is divided as follows:

I. Dogma of the Trinity; II. Proof of the Doctrine from Scripture; III. Proof of the Doctrine from Tradition; IV. The Trinity as a Mystery; V. The Doctrine as Interpreted in Greek Theology; VI. The Doctrine as Interpreted in Latin Theology. I. THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and

the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system. In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes: There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P. G., X, 986). It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine ot the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation. II. PROOF OF DOCTRINE FROM SCRIPTURE A. New Testament The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step. First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,

and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures. The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible. The supernatural appearance at the baptism of Christ is often cited as an explicit revelation of Trinitarian doctrine, given at the very commencement of the Ministry. This, it seems to us, is a mistake. The Evangelists, it is true, see in it a manifestation of the Three Divine Persons. Yet, apart from Christ's subsequent teaching, the dogmatic meaning of the scene would hardly have been understood. Moreover, the Gospel narratives appear to signify that none but Christ and the Baptist were privileged to see the Mystic Dove, and hear the words attesting the Divine sonship of the Messias. Besides these passages there are many others in the Gospels which refer to one or other of the Three Persons in particular and clearly express the separate personality and Divinity of each. In regard to the First Person it will not be necessary to give special citations: those which declare that Jesus Christ is God the Son, affirm thereby also the separate personality of the Father. The Divinity of Christ is amply attested not merely by St. John, but by the Synoptists. As this point is treated elsewhere (see JESUS CHRIST), it will be sufficient here to enumerate a few of the more important messages from the Synoptists, in which Christ bears witness to His Divine Nature. * He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matthew 25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative. * In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all, are represented as the servants (Matthew 21:33 sqq.). * He is the Lord of Angels, who execute His command (Matthew 24:31).

* He approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as Messias -- a step long since taken by all the Apostles -- but explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to a special revelation from the Father (Matthew 16:16-17). * Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71). St. John's testimony is yet more explicit than that of the Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John 20:31). In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God (John 1:1-18). The immanence of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son is declared in Christ's words to St. Philip: "Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" (14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (14:7; 16:15; 17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: "Whatever he [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner" (5:19, cf. 10:38); and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will (5:21). In 10:29, Christ expressly teaches His unity of essence with the Father: "That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me," can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father. Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son. (On the essential difference between St. John's doctrine as to the Person of Christ and the Logos doctrine of the Alexandrine Philo, to which many Rationalists have attempted to trace it, see LOGOS.) In regard to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the passages which can be cited from the Synoptists as attesting His distinct personality are few. The words of Gabriel (Luke 1:35), having regard to the use of the term, "the Spirit," in the Old Testament, to signify God as operative in His creatures, can hardly be said to contain a definite revelation of the doctrine. For the same reason it is dubious whether Christ's warning to the Pharisees as regards blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31) can be brought forward as proof. But in Luke 12:12, "The Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say" (Matthew 10:20, and Luke 24:49), His personality is clearly implied. These passages, taken in connection with Matthew 28:19, postulate the existence of such teaching as we find in the discourses in the Cenacle reported by St. John (14, 15, 16). We have in these chapters the necessary preparation for the baptismal

commission. In them the Apostles are instructed not only as the personality of the Spirit, but as to His office towards the Church. His work is to teach whatsoever He shall hear (16:13) to bring back their minds the teaching of Christ (14:26), to convince the world of sin (16:8). It is evident that, were the Spirit not a Person, Christ could not have spoken of His presence with the Apostles as comparable to His own presence with them (14:16). Again, were He not a Divine Person it could not have been expedient for the Apostles that Christ should leave them, and the Paraclete take His place (16:7). Moreover, notwithstanding the neuter form of the word (pneuma), the pronoun used in His regard is the masculine ekeinos. The distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is involved in the express statements that He proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son (15:26; cf. 14:16, 14:26). Nevertheless, He is one with Them: His presence with the Disciples is at the same time the presence of the Son (14:17-18), while the presence of the Son is the presence of the Father (14:23). In the remaining New Testament writings numerous passages attest how clear and definite was the belief of the Apostolic Church in the three Divine Persons. In certain texts the coordination of Father, Son, and Spirit leaves no possible doubt as to the meaning of the writer. Thus in II Corinthians 13:13, St. Paul writes: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all." Here the construction shows that the Apostle is speaking of three distinct Persons. Moreover, since the names God and Holy Ghost are alike Divine names, it follows that Jesus Christ is also regarded as a Divine Person. So also, in I Corinthians 12:4-11: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all [of them] in all [persons]." (Cf. also Ephesians 4:4-6; I Peter 1:2-3.) But apart from passages such as these, where there is express mention of the Three Persons, the teaching of the New Testament regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit is free from all ambiguity. In regard to Christ, the Apostles employ modes of speech which, to men brought up in the Hebrew faith, necessarily signified belief in His Divinity. Such, for instance, is the use of the Doxology in reference to Him. The Doxology, "To Him be glory for ever and ever" (cf. I Chronicles 16:38; 29:11; Psalm 103:31; 28:2), is an expression of praise offered to God alone. In the New Testament we find it addressed not alone to God the Father, but to Jesus Christ (II Timothy 4:18; II Peter 3:18; Revelations 1:6; Hebrews 13:20-21), and to God the Father and Christ in conjunction (Revelations 5:13, 7:10). Not less convincing is the use of the title Lord (Kyrios). This term represents the Hebrew Adonai, just as God (Theos) represents Elohim. The two are equally Divine names (cf. I Corinthians 8:4). In the Apostolic writings Theos may almost be said to be treated as a proper name of God the Father, and Kyrios of the Son (see, for example, I Corinthians 12:5-6); in only a few passages do we find Kyrios used of the Father (I Corinthians 3:5; 7:17) or Theos of Christ. The Apostles from time to time apply to Christ passages of the Old Testament in which Kyrios is used, for example, I Corinthians 10:9 (Numbers 21:7), Hebrews 1:10-12 (Psalm 101:26-28); and they use such expressions as "the fear of the Lord" (Acts 9:31; II Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians 5:21), "call upon the name of the Lord," indifferently of God the Father and of Christ (Acts 2:21; 9:14; Romans 10:13). The profession that "Jesus is the Lord" (Kyrion Iesoun, Romans 10:9; Kyrios Iesous, I Corinthians 12:3) is the acknowledgment of Jesus as Jahweh. The texts in which St. Paul affirms that in Christ dwells the plenitude of the Godhead

(Colossians 2:9), that before His Incarnation He possessed the essential nature of God (Philemon 2:6), that He "is over all things, God blessed for ever" (Romans 9:5) tell us nothing that is not implied in many other passages of his Epistles. The doctrine as to the Holy Spirit is equally clear. That His distinct personality was fully recognized is shown by many passages. Thus He reveals His commands to the Church's ministers: "As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas . . ." (Acts 13:2). He directs the missionary journey of the Apostles: "They attempted to go into Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not" (Acts 16:7; cf. Acts 5:3; 15:28; Romans 15:30). Divine attributes are affirmed of Him. * He possesses omniscience and reveals to the Church mysteries known only to God (I Corinthians 2:10); * it is He who distributes charismata (I Cor., 12:11); * He is the giver of supernatural life (II Cor., 3:8); * He dwells in the Church and in the souls of individual men, as in His temple (Romans 8:9-11; I Corinthians 3:16, 6:19). * The work of justification and sanctification is attributed to Him (I Cor., 6:11; Rom., 15:16), just as in other passages the same operations are attributed to Christ (I Cor., 1:2; Gal., 2:17). To sum up: the various elements of the Trinitarian doctrine are all expressly taught in the New Testament. The Divinity of the Three Persons is asserted or implied in passages too numerous to count. The unity of essence is not merely postulated by the strict monotheism of men nurtured in the religion of Israel, to whom "subordinate deities" would have been unthinkable; but it is, as we have seen, involved in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:19, and, in regard to the Father and the Son, expressly asserted in John 10:38. That the Persons are co-eternal and coequal is a mere corollary from this. In regard to the Divine processions, the doctrine of the first procession is contained in the very terms Father and Son: the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son is taught in the discourse of the Lord reported by St. John (14-17) (see HOLY GHOST). B. Old Testament The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely believed that the Prophets had testified of it, they held that it had been made known even to the Patriarchs. They regarded it as certain that the Divine messenger of Genesis 16:7, 18, 21:17, 31:11; Exodus 3:2, was God the Son; for reasons to be mentioned below (III. B.) they considered it evident that God the Father could not have thus manifested Himself (cf. Justin, "Dial.", 60; Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", IV, xx, 7-11; Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.", 15-16; Theoph., "Ad Autol.", ii, 22; Novat., "De Trin.", 18, 25, etc.). They held that, when the inspired writers speak of "the Spirit

of the Lord", the reference was to the Third Person of the Trinity: and one or two (Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", II, xxx, 9; Theophilus, "Ad. Aut.", II, 15; Hippolytus, "Con. Noet.", 10) interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the Sapiential books, not, with St. Paul, of the Son (Hebrews 1:3; cf. Wisdom, vii, 25, 26), but of the Holy Spirit. But in others of the Fathers is found what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the doctrine was given under the Old Covenant. (Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, "Or. theol.", v, 26; Epiphanius, "Ancor." 73, "Haer.", 74; Basil, "Adv. Eunom.", II, 22; Cyril Alex., "In Joan.", xii, 20.) Some of these, however, admitted that a knowledge of the mystery was granted to the Prophets and saints of the Old Dispensation (Epiph., "Haer.", viii, 5; Cyril Alex., "Con. Julian.," I). It may be readily conceded that the way is prepared for the revelation in some of the prophecies. The names Emmanuel (Isaias 7:14) and God the Mighty (Isaias 9:6) affirmed of the Messias make mention of the Divine Nature of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems that the Gospel revelation was needed to render the full meaning of the passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself. The Septuagint translators do not even venture to render the words God the Mighty literally, but give us, in their place,"the angel of great counsel." A still higher stage of preparation is found in the doctrine of the Sapiential books regarding the Divine Wisdom. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom appears personified, and in a manner which suggests that the sacred author was not employing a mere metaphor, but had before his mind a real person (cf. verses 22, 23). Similar teaching occurs in Ecclus., 24, in a discourse which Wisdom is declared to utter in "the assembly of the Most High", i. e. in the presence of the angels. This phrase certainly supposes Wisdom to be conceived as person. The nature of the personality is left obscure; but we are told thnt the whole earth is Wisdom's Kingdom, that she finds her delight in all the works of God, but that Israel is in a special manner her portion and her inheritance (Ecclus., 24:8-13). In the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon we find a still further advance. Here Wisdom is clearly distinguished from Jehovah: "She is. . .a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God. . .the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God's majesty, and the image of his goodness" (Wisdom 7:25-26. Cf. Hebrews 1:3). She is, moreover, described as "the worker of all things" (panton technitis, 7:21), an expression indicating that the creation is in some manner attributable to her. Yet in later Judaism this exalted doctrine suffered eclipse, and seems to have passed into oblivion. Nor indeed can it be said that the passage, even though it manifests some knowledge of a second personality in the Godhead, constitutes a revelation of the Trinity. For nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person. Mention is often made of the Spirit of the Lord, but there is nothing to show that the Spirit was viewed as distinct from Jahweh Himself. The term is always employed to signify God considered in His working, whether in the universe or in the soul of man. The matter seems to be correctly summed up by Epiphanius, when he says: "The One Godhead is above all declared by Moses, and the twofold personality (of Father and Son) is strenuously asuerted by the Prophets. The Trinity is made known by the Gospel" ("Haer.", Ixxiv). III. PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE FROM TRADITION

A. The Church Fathers In this section we shall show that the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity has from the earliest times been taught by the Catholic Church and professed by her members. As none deny this for any period subsequent to the Arian and Macedonian controversies, it will be sufficient if we here consider the faith of the first four centuries only. An argument of very great weight is provided in the liturgical forms of the Church. The highest probative force must necessarily attach to these, since they express not the private opinion of a single individual, but the public belief of the whole body of the faithful. Nor can it be objected that the notions of Christians on the subject were vague and confused, and that their liturgical forms reflect this frame of mind. On such a point vagueness was impossible. Any Christian might be called on to seal with his blood his belief that there is but One God. The answer of Saint Maximus (c. A.D. 250) to the command of the proconsul that he should sacrifice to the gods, "I offer no sacrifice save to the One True God," is typical of many such replies in the Acts of the martyrs. It is out of the question to suppose that men who were prepared to give their lives on behalf of this fundamental truth were in point of fact in so great confusion in regard to it that they were unaware whether their creed was monotheistic, ditheistic, or tritheistic. Moreover, we know that their instruction regarding the doctrines of their religion was solid. The writers of that age bear witness that even the unlettered were thoroughly familiar with the truths of faith (cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 60; Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", III, iv, n. 2). (1) Baptismal formulas We may notice first the baptismal formula, which all acknowledge to be primitive. It has already been shown that the words as prescribed by Christ (Matthew 28:19) clearly express the Godhead of the Three Persons as well as their distinction, but another consideration may here be added. Baptism, with its formal renunciation of Satan and his works, was understood to be the rejection of the idolatry of paganism and the solemn consecration of the baptised to the one true God (Tert., "De spect.", iv; Justin, "Apol.", I, iv). The act of consecration was the invocation over them of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The supposition that they regarded the Second and Third Persons as created beings, and were in fact consecrating themselves to the service of creatures, is manifestly absurd. St. Hippolytus has expressed the faith of the Church in the clearest terms: "He who descends into this laver of regeneration with faith forsakes the Evil One and engages himself to Christ, renounces the enemy and confesses that Christ is God . . . he returns from the font a son of God and a coheir of Christ. To Whom with the all holy, the good and lifegiving Spirit be glory now and always, forever and ever. Amen" ("Serm. in Theoph.", n. 10). The doxologies (2) The witness of the doxologies is no less striking. The form now universal, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost," so clearly expresses the Trinitarian dogma that

the Arians found it necessary to deny that it had been in use previous to the time of Flavian of Antioch (Philostorgius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xiii). It is true that up to the period of the Arian controversy another form, "Glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit," had been more common (cf. I Clement, 58, 59; Justin, "Apol.", I, 67). This latter form is indeed perfectly consistent with Trinitarian belief: it, however, expresses not the coequality of the Three Persons, but their operation in regard to man. We live in the Spirit, and through Him we are made partakers in Christ (Galatians 5:25; Romans 8:9); and it is through Christ, as His members, that we are worthy to offer praise to God (Heb. 13:15). But there are many passages in the ante-Nicene Fathers which show that the form, "Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to [with] the Holy Spirit," was also in use. * In the narrative of St. Polycarp's martyrdom we read: "With Whom to Thee and the Holy Spirit be glory now and for the ages to come" (Mart. S. Polyc., n.14; cf. n. 22). * Clement of Alexandria bids men "give thanks and praise to the only Father and Son, to the Son and Father with the Holy Spirit" (Paed., III, xii). * St. Hippolytus closes his work against Noetus with the words: "To Him be glory and power with the Father and the Holy Spirit in Holy Church now and always for ever and ever. Amen" (Contra Noet., n. 18). * Denis of Alexandria uses almost the same words: "To God the Father and to His Son Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit be honour and glory forever and ever, Amen" (in St. Basil, "De Spiritu Sancto", xxix, n. 72). * St. Basil further tells us that it was an immemorial custom among Christians when they lit the evening lamp to give thanks to God with prayer: Ainoumen Patera kai Gion kai Hagion Pneuma Theou ("We praise the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God"). (3) Other patristic writings The doctrine of the Trinity is formally taught in every class of ecclesiastical writing. From among the apologists we may note Justin, "Apol." I, vi; Athenagoras, "Legat: pro Christ.", n. 12. The latter tells us that Christians "are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and their distinction in unity." It would be impossible to be more explicit. And we may be sure that an apologist, writing for pagans, would weigh well the words in which he dealt with this doctrine. Amongst polemical writers we may refer to Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", I, xxii, IV, xx, 1-6. In these passages he rejects the Gnostic figment that the world was created by aeons who had emanated from God, but were not consubstantial with Him, and teaches the consubstantiality of the Word and the Spirit by Whom God created all things. Clement of Alexandria professes the doctrine in "Paedag." I, vi, and somewhat later Gregory Thaumaturgus, as we have already seen, lays it down in the most express terms in his creed (P.G., X, 986).

(4) As contrasted with heretical teachings Yet further evidence regarding the Church's doctrine is furnished by a comparison of her teaching with that of heretical sects. The controversy with the Sabellians in the third century proves conclusively that she would tolerate no deviation from Trinitarian doctrine. Noetus of Smyrna, the originator of the error, was condemned by a local synod, about A.D. 200. Sabellius, who propagated the same heresy at Rome c. A.D. 220, was excommunicated by St. Callistus. It is notorious that the sect made no appeal to tradition: it found Trinitarianism in possession wherever it appeared -- at Smyrna, at Rome, in Africa, in Egypt. On the other hand, St. Hippolytus, who combats it in the "Contra Noetum," claims Apostolic tradition for the doctrine of the Catholic Church: "Let us believe, beloved brethren, in accordance with the tradition of the Apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven to the holy Virgin Mary to save man." Somewhat later (c. A.D. 260) Denis of Alexandria found that the error was widespread in the Libyan Pentapolis, and he addressed a dogmatic letter against it to two bishops, Euphranor and Ammonius. In this, in order to emphasize the distinction between the Persons, he termed the Son poiema tou Theou and used other expressions capable of suggesting that the Son is to be reckoned among creatures. He was accused of heterodoxy to St. Dionysius of Rome, who held a council and addressed to him a letter dealing with the true Catholic doctrine on the point in question. The Bishop of Alexandria replied with a defense of his orthodoxy entitled "Elegxhos kai apologia," in whioh he corrected whatever had been erroneous. He expressly professes his belief in the consubstantiality of the Son, using the very term, homoousios, which afterwards became the touchstone of orthodoxy at Nicaea (P. G., XXV, 505). The story of the controversy is conclusive as to the doctrinal standard of the Church. It shows us that she was firm in rejecting on the one hand any confusion of the Persons and on the other hand any denial of their consubstantiality. The information we possess regarding another heresy -- that of Montanus -- supplies us with further proof that the doctrine of the Trinity was the Church's teaching in A.D. 150. Tertullian affirms in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity when a Catholic he still holds as a Montanist ("Adv. Prax.", II, 156); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of the Three Persons, their distinction, the eternity of God the Son (op. cit., xxvii). Epiphanius in the same way asserts the orthodoxy of the Montanists on this subject (Haer., lxviii). Now it is not to be supposed that the Montanists had accepted any novel teaching from the Catholic Church since their secession in the middle of the second century. Hence, inasmuch as there was full agreement between the two bodies in regard to the Trinity, we have here again a clear proof that Trinitarianism was an article of faith at a time when the Apostolic tradition was far too recent for any error to have arisen on apoint so vital. B. Later Controversy Notwithstanding the force of the arguments we have just summarised, a vigorous controversy has been carried on from the end of the seventeenth century to the present day regarding the

Trinitarian doctrine of the ante-Nicene Fathers. The Socinian writers of the seventeenth century (e. g. Sand, "Nucleus historiae ecclesiastic", Amsterdam, 1668) asserted that the language of the early Fathers in many passages of their works shows that they agreed not with Athanasius, but with Arius. Petavius, who was at that period engaged on his great theological work, was convinced by their arguments, and allowed that at least some of these Fathers had fallen into grave errors. On the other hand, their orthodoxy was vigorously defended by the Anglican divine Dr. George Bull ("Defensio Fidei Nicaean", Oxford, 1685) and subsequently by Bossuet, Thomassinus, and other Catholic theologians. Those who take the less favourable view assert that they teach the following points inconsistent with the post-Nicene belief of the Church: * That the Son even as regards His Divine Nature is inferior and not equal to the Father; * that the Son alone appeared in the theophanies of the Old Testament, inasmuchas the Father is essentially invisible, the Son, however, not so; * that the Son is a created being; * that the generation of the Son is not eternal, but took place in time. We shall examine these four points in order. (1) In proof of the assertion that many of the Fathers deny the equality of the Son with the Father, passages are cited from Justin (Apol., I, xiii, xxxii), Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, viii, n. 3), Clem. Alex. ("Strom." VII, ii), Hippolytus (Con. Noet., n. 14), Origen (Con. Cels., VIII, xv). Thus Irenaeus (loc. cit.) says: "He commanded, and they were created . . . Whom did He command? His Word, by whom, says the Scripture, the heavens were established. And Origen, loc. cit., says: "We declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself: "The Father who sent me is greater than I." Now in regard to these passages it must be borne in mind that there are two ways of considering the Trinity. We may view the Three Persons insofar as they are equally possessed of the Divine Nature or we may consider the Son and the Spirit as derivlng from the Father, Who is the sole source of Godhead, and from Whom They receive all They have and are. The former mode of considering them has been the more common since the Arian heresy. The latter, however, was more frequent previously to that period. Under this aspect, the Father, as being: tbe sole source of all, may be termed greater than the Son. Thus Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Fathers of the Council of Sardica, in their synodical letter, all treat our Lord's words, teaches "The Father is greater than I" as having reference to His Godhead (cf. Petavius, "De Trin.", II, ii, 7, vi, 11). From this point of view it may be said that in the creation of the world the Father commanded, the Son obeyed. The expression is not one which would have been employed by Latin writers who insist thst creation and all God's works proceed from Him as One and not from the Persons as distinct from each other. But this truth was unfamiliar to the early Fathers. (2) Justin (Dial., n. 60) Irenaeus (Adv. haer., IV, xx, nn. 7, 11), Tertullian ("C. Marc.", II, 27; "Adv. Prax.", 15, 16), Novatian (De Trin., xviii, 25), Theophilus (Ad Autol., II, xxii), are accused

of teaching that the theophanies were incompatible with the essential nature of the Father, yet not incompatible with that of the Son. In this case also the difficulty is largely removed if it be remembered that these writers regarded all the Divine operations as proceeding from the Three Persons as such, and not from the Godhead viewed as one. Now Revelation teaches us that in the work of the creation and redemption of the world the Father effects His purpose through the Son. Through Him He made the world; through Him He redeemed it; through Him He will judge it. Hence it was believed by these writers that, having regard to the present disposition of Providence, the theophanies could only have been the work of the Son. Moreover, in Colossians 1:15, the Son is expressly termed "the image of the invisible God" (eikon tou Theou rou aoratou). This expression they seem to have taken with strict literalness. The function of an eikon is to manifest what is itself hidden (cf. St. John Damascene, "De imagin.", III, n. 17). Hence they held that the work of revealing the Father belongs by nature to the Second Person of the Trinity, and concluded that the theophanies were His work. (3) Expressions which appear to contain the statement that the Son was created are found in Clement of Alexandria (Strom., V, xiv; VI, vii), Tatian (Orat., v), Tertullian ("Adv. Prax." vi; "Adv. "Adv. Hermong.", xviii, xx), Origen (In Joan., I, n. 22). Clement speaks of Wisdom as "created before all things" (protoktistos), and Tatian terms the Word the "first-begotten work of (ergon prototokon) Of the Father. Yet the meaning of these authors is clear. In Colossians 1:16, St. Paul says that all things were created in the Son. This was understood to signify that creation took place according to exemplar ideas predetermined by God and existing in the Word. In view of this, it might be said that the Father created the Word, this term being used in place of the more accurate generated, inasmuch as the exemplar ideas of creation were communicated by the Father to the Son. Or, again, the actual Creation of the world might be termed the creation of the Word, since it takes place according to the ideas which exist in the Word. The context invariably shows that the passage is to be understood in one or another of these senses. The expression is undoubtedly very harsh, and it certainly would never have been employed but for the verse, Proverbs 8:22, which is rendered in the Septuagint and the old Latin versions, "The Lord created (ektise) me, who am the beginning of His ways." As the passage was understood as having reference to the Son, it gave rise to the question how it could be said that Wisdom was created (Origen, "Princ.", I, ii, n. 3). It is further to be remembered that accurate terminology in regard to the relations between the Three Persons was the fruit of the controversies which sprang up in the fourth century. The writers of an earlier period were not concerned with Arianism, and employed expressions which in the light of subsequent errors are seen to be not merely inaccurate, but dangerous. (4) Greater difficulty is perhaps presented by a series of passages which appear to assert that prior to the Creation of the world the Word was not a distinct hypostasis from the Father. These are found in Justin (C. Tryphon., lxi), Tatian (Con. Graecos, v), Athenagoras (Legat., x), Theophilus (Ad Autol., II, x, 22); Hippolytus (Con. Noet., x); Tertullian ("Adv. Prax.", v-vii; "Adv. Hermogenem" xviii). Thus Theophilus writes (op. cit., n. 22): "What else is this voice [heard in Paradise] but the Word of God Who is also His Son? . . . For before anything came into being, He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought [i.e. as the logos endiathetos, c. x]). But when God wished to make all that He had determined on, then did He beget Him as the uttered Word [logos prophorikos], the firstborn of all creation, not, however, Himself being left without Reason (logos), but having begotten Reason, and ever holding converse with Reason." Expressions such as these are undoubtedly due to the influence of the

Stoic philosophy: the logos endiathetos and logos prophorikos were current conceptions of that school. It is evident that these apologists were seeking to explain the Christian Faith to their pagan readers in terms with which the latter were familiar. Some Catholic writers have indeed thought that the influence of their previous training did lead some of them into Subordinationism, although the Church herself was never involved in the error (see LOGOS). Yet it does not seem necessary to adopt this conclusion. If the point of view of the writers be borne in mind, the expressions, strange as they are, will be seen not to be incompatibIe with orthodox belief. The early Fathers, as we have said, regarded Proverbs 8:22, and Colossians 1:15, as distinctly teaching that there is a sense in which the Word, begotten before all worlds, may rightly be said to have been begotten also in time. This temporal generation they conceived to be none other than the act of creation. They viewed this as the complement of the eternal generation, inasmuch as it is the external manifestation of those creative ideas which from all eternity the Father has communicated to the Eternal Word. Since, in the very same works which contain these perplexing expressions, other passages are found teaching explicitly the eternity of the Son, it appears most natural to interpret them in this sense. It should further be remembered that throughout this period theologians, when treating of the relation of the Divine Persons to each other, invariably regard them in connection with the cosmogony. Only later, in the Nicene epoch, did they learn to prescind from the question of creation and deal with the threefold Personality exclusively from the point of view of the Divine life of the Godhead. When that stage was reached expressions such as these became impossible. IV. THE TRINITY AS A MYSTERY The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Const., "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine messege. Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do. The Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to reason. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question. Moreover, our Lord's words, Matthew 11:27, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," seem to declare expressly that the plurality of Persons in the Godhead is a truth entirely beyond the scope of any created intellect. The Fathers supply many passages in which the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature is affirmed. St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase: "The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it" (De mysterio Trinitatus recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae --

"Proem ad 1. xviii in Isai."). The controversy with the Eunomians, who declared that the Divine Essence was fully expressed in the absolutely simple notion of "the Innascible" (agennetos), and that this was fully comprehensible by the human mind, led many of the Greek Fathers to insist on the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature, more especially in regard to the internal processions. St. Basil. "In Eunom.", I, n. 14; St. Cyril of Jerusdem, "Cat.", VI; St. John Damascene, "Fid. Orth.", I, ii, etc., etc.). At a later date, however, some famous names are to be found defending a contrary opinion Anselm ("Monol.", 64), Abelard ("ln Ep. ad Rom."), Hugo of St. Victor ("De sacram." III, xi), and Richard of St. Victor ("De Trin.", III, v) all declare that it is possible to assign peremptory reasons why God should be both One and Three. In explanation of this it should be noted that at that period the relation of philosophy to revealed doctrine was but obscurely understood. Only after the Aristotelean system had obtained recognition from theologians was this question thoroughly treated. In the intellectual ferment of the time Abelard initiated a Rationalistic tendency: not merely did he claim a knowledge of the Trinity for the pagan philosophers, but his own Trinitarian doctrine was practically Sabellian. Anselm's error was due not to Rationalism, but to too wide an application of the Augustinian principle "Crede ut intelligas". Hugh and Richard of St. Victor were, however, certainly influenced by Abelard's teaching. Raymond Lully's (1235-1315) errors in this regard were even more extreme. They were expressly condemned by Gregory XI in 1376. In the nineteenth century the influence of the prevailing Rationalism manifested itself in several Catholic writers. Frohschammer and Gnther both asserted that the dogma of the Trinity was capable of proof. Pius IX reprobated their opinions on more than one occasion (Denzinger, 1655 sq., 1666 sq., 1709 sq.), and it was to guard against this tendency that the Vatican Council issued the decrees to which reference has been made. A somewhat similar, though less aggravated, error on the part of Rosmini was condemned, 14 December, 1887 (Denz., 1915). V. THE DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED IN GREEK THEOLOGY A. Nature and Personality The Greek Fathers approached the problem of Trinitarian doctrine in a way which differs in an important particular from that which, since the days of St. Augustine, has become traditional in Latin theology. In Latin theology thought fixed first on the Nature and only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is regarded as logically prior to the Personality. Hence, because God's Nature is one, He is known to us as One God before He can be known as Three Persons. And when theologians speak of God without special mention of a Person, conceive Him under this aspect. This is entirely different from the Greek point of view. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct Persons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of God (Theos) more especially belongs; the Son, proceeding from the Father by an eternal generation, and therefore rightly termed God also; and the Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Personality is treated as logically prior to the Nature. Just as human nature is something which the individual men possesses, and which can only be conceived as belonging to and dependent on

the individual, so the Divine Nature is something which belongs to the Persons and cannot be conceived independently of Them. The contrast appears strikingly in regard to the question of creation. All Western theologians teach that creation, like all God's external works, proceeds from Him as One: the separate Personalities do not enter into consideration. The Greeks invariably speak as though, in all the Divine works, each Person exercises a separate office. Irenaeus replies to the Gnostics, who held that the world was created by a demiurge other than the supreme God, by affirming that God is the one Creator, and that He made all things by His Word and His Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit (Adv. haer., I, xxii; II, iv, 4, 5, xxx, 9; IV, xx, 1). A formula often found among the Greek Fathers is that all things are from the Father and are effected by the Son in the Spirit (Athanasius, "Ad Serap.", I, xxxi; Basil, "De Spiritu Sancto", n. 38; Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin. dial.", VI). Thus, too, Hippolytus (Con Noet., x) says that God has fashioned all things by His Word and His Wisdom creating them by His Word, adorning them by His Wisdom (gar ta genomena dia Logou kai Sophias technazetai, Logo men ktizon Sophia de kosmon). The Nicene Creed still preserves for us this point of view. In it we still profess our belief "in one God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth . . . and in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . by Whom all things were made . . . and in the Holy Ghost." B. The Divine Unity The Greek Fathers did not neglect to safeguard the doctrine of the Divine Unity, though manifestly their standpoint requires a different treatment from that employed in the West. The consubstantiality of the Persons is asserted by St. Irenaeus when he tells us that God created the world by His Son and His Spirit, "His two hands" (Adv. haer., IV, xx, 1). The purport of the phrase is evidently to indicate that the Second and Third Persons are not substantially distinct from the First. A more philosophical description is the doctrine of the Recapitulation (sygkephalaiosis). This seems to be first found in the correspondence between St. Denis of Alexandria and St. Dionysius of Rome. The former writes: "We thus [i.e., by the twofold procession] extend the Monad [the First Person] to the Trinity, without causing any division, and were capitulate the Trinity in the Monad without causing diminution" (outo men emeis eis te ten Triada ten Monada, platynomen adiaireton, kai ten Triada palin ameioton eis ten Monada sygkephalaioumetha -- P.G., XXV, 504). Here the consubstantiality is affirmed on the ground that the Son and Spirit, proceeding from the Father, are nevertheless not separated from Him; while they again, with all their perfections, can be regarded as contained within Him. This doctrine supposes a point of view very different from that with which we are now familiar. The Greek Fathers regarded the Son as the Wisdom and power of the Father (I Cor., 1:24) in a formal sense, and in like manner, the Spirit as His Sanctity. Apart from the Son the Father would be without Hls Wisdom; apart from the Spirit He would be without His Sanctity. Thus the Son and the Spirit are termed "Powers" (Dynameis) of the Father. But while in creatures the powers and faculties are mere accidental perfections, in the Godhead they are subsistent hypostases.

Denis of Alexandria regarding the Second and Third Persons as the Father's "Powers", speaks of the First Person as being "extended" to them, and not divided from them. And, since whatever they have and are flows from Him, this writer asserts that if we fix our thoughts on the sole source of Deity alone, we find in Him undiminished all that is contained in them. The Arian controversy led to insistence on the Homosia. But with the Greeks this is not a starting point, but a conclusion, the result of reflective analysis. The sonship of the Second Person implies that He has received the Divine Nature in its fullness, for all generation implies the origination of one who is like in nature to the originating principle. But here, mere specific unity is out of the question. The Divine Essence is not capable of numerical multiplication; it is therefore, they reasoned, identically the same nature which both possess. A similar line of argument establishes that the Divine Nature as communicated to the Holy Spirit is not specifically, but numerically, one with that of the Father and the Son. Unity of nature was understood by the Greek Fathers as involving unity of will and unity of action (energeia). This they declared the Three Persons to possess (Athanasius, "Adv. Sabell.", xii, 13; Basil, "Ep. clxxxix," n. 7; Gregory of Nyssa, "De orat. dom.," John Damascene, "De fide orth.", III, xiv). Here we see an important advance in the theology of the Godhead. For, as we have noted, the earlier Fathers invariably conceive the Three Persons as each exercising a distinct and separate function. Finally we have the doctrine of Circuminsession (perichoresis). By this is signified the reciprocal inexistence and compenetration of the Three Persons. The term perichoresis is first used by St. John Damascene. Yet the doctrine is found much earlier. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria says that the Son is called the Word and Wisdom of the Father "because of the reciprocal inherence of these and the mind" (dia ten eis allela . . . ., hos an eipoi tis, antembolen). St. John Damascene assigns a twofold basis for this inexistence of the Persons. In some passages he explains it by the doctrine already mentioned, that the Son and the Spirit are dynameis of the Father (cf. "De recta sententia"). Thus understood, the Circuminsession is a corollary of the doctrine of Recapitulation. He also understands it as signifying the identity of essence, will, and action in the Persons. Wherever these are peculiar to the individual, as is the case in all creatures, there, he tells us, we have separate existence (kechorismenos einai). In the Godhead the essence, will, and action are but one. Hence we have not separate existence, but Circuminsession (perichoresis) (Fid. orth., I, viii). Here, then, the Circuminsession has its basis in the Homosia. It is easy to see that the Greek system was less well adapted to meet the cavils of the Arian and Macedonian heretics than was that subsequently developedby St. Augustine. Indeed the controversies of the fourth century brought some of the Greek Fathers notably nearer to the positions of Latin theology. We have seen that they were led to affirm the action of the Three Persons to be but one. Didymus even employs expressions which seem to show that he, like the Latins, conceived the Nature as logically antecedent to the Persons. He understands the term God as signifying the whole Trinity, and not, as do the other Greeks, the Father alone: "When we pray, whether we say 'Kyrie eleison', or 'O God aid us', we do not miss our mark: for we include the whole of the Blessed Trinity in one Godhead" (De Trin., II, xix).

C. Mediate and Immediate Procession The doctrine that the Spirit is the image of the Son, as the Son is the image of the Father, is characteristic of Greek theology. It is asserted by St. Gregory Thaumaturgus in his Creed. It is assumed by St. Athanasius as an indisputable premise in his controversy with the Macedonians (Ad Serap., I, xx, xxi, xxiv; II, i, iv). It is implied in the comparisons employed both by him (Ad Serap. I, xix) and by St. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. xxxi, 31, 32), of the Three Divine Persons to the sun, the ray, the light; and to the source, the spring, and the stream. We find it also in St. Cyril of Alexandria ("Thesaurus assert.", 33), St. John Damascene ("Fid.orth." I, 13), etc. This supposes that the procession of the Son from the Father is immediate; that of the Spirit from the Father is mediate. He proceeds from the Father through the Son. Bessarion rightly observes that the Fathers who used these expressions conceived the Divine Procession as taking place, so to speak, along a straight line (P. G., CLXI, 224). On the other hand, in Western theology the symbolic diagram of the Trinity has ever been the triangle, the relations of the Three Persons one to another being precisely similar. The point is worth noting, for this diversity of symbolic representation leads inevitably to very different expressions of the same dogmatic truth. It is plain that these Fathers would have rejected no less firmly than the Latins the later Photian heresy that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. (For this question the reader is referred to HOLY GHOST.) D. The Son The Greek theology of the Divine Generation differs in certain particulars from the Latin. Most Western theologians base their theory on the name, Logos, given by St. John to the Second Person. This they understand in the sense of "concept" (verbum mentale), and hold that the Divine Generation is analogous to the act by which the created intellect produces its concept. Among Greek writers this explanation is unknown. They declare the manner of the Divine Generation to be altogether beyond our comprehension. We know by revelation that God has a Son; and various other terms besides Son employed regarding Him in Scripture, such as Word, Brightness of His glory, etc., show us that His sonship must be conceived as free from any relation. More we know not (cf. Gregory Nazianzen, "Orat. xxix", p. 8, Cyril of Jerusalem, "Cat.", xi, 19; John Damascene, "Fid. orth.", I, viii). One explanation only can be given, namely, that the perfection we call fecundity must needs be found in God the Absolutely Perfect (St. John Damascene, "Fid.orth.", I, viii). Indeed it would seem that the great majority of the Greek Fathers understood logos not of the mental thought; but of the uttered word ("Dion. Alex."; Athanasius, ibid.; Cyril of Alexandria, "De Trin.", II). They did not see in the term a revelation that the Son is begotten by way of intellectual procession, but viewed it as a metaphor intended to exclude the material associations of human sonship (Gregory of Nyssa, "C. Eunom.", IV; Gregory Nazianzen, "Orat. xxx", p. 20; Basil, "Hom. xvi"; Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus assert.", vi). We have already adverted to the view that the Son is the Wisdom and Power of the Father in the full and formal sense. This teaching constantly recurs from the time of Origen to that of St. John

Damascene (Origen apud Athan., "De decr. Nic.", p. 27; Athanasius, "Con. Arianos", I, p. 19; Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus"; John Damascene, "Fid.orth.", I, xii). It is based on the Platonic philosophy accepted by the Alexandrine School. This differs in a fundamental point from the Aristoteleanism of the Scholastic theologians. In Aristotelean philosophy perfection is always conceived statically. No actlon, transient or immanent, can proceed from any agent unless that agent, as statically conceived, possesses whatever perfection is contained in the action. The Alexandrine standpoint was other than this. To them perfection must be sought in dynamic activity. God, as the supreme perfection, is from all eternity self-moving, ever adorning Himself with His own attributes: they issue from Him and, being Divine, are not accidents, but subsistent realities. To these thinkers, therefore, there was no impossibility in the supposition that God is wise with the Wisdom which is the result of His own immanent action, powerful with the Power which proceeds from Him. The arguments of the Greek Fathers frequently presuppose this philosophy as their bssis; and unless it be clearly grasped, reasoning which on their premises is conclusive will appear to us invalid and fallacious. Thus it is sometimes urged as a reason for rejecting Arianism that, if there were a time when the Son was not, it follows that God must then have been devoid of Wisdom and of Power -- a conclusion from which even Arians would shrink. E. The Holy Spirit A point which in Western theology gives occasion for some discussion is the question as to why the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is termed the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine suggests that it is because He proceeds from both the Father and the Son, and hence He rightly receives a name applicable to both (De Trin., xv, n. 37). To the Greek Fathers, who developed the theology of the Spirit in the light of the philosophical principles which we have just noticed, the question presented no difficulty. His name, they held, reveals to us His distinctive character as the Third Person, just as the names Father and Son manifest the distinctive characters of the First and Second Persons (cf. Gregory Thaumaturgus, "Ecth. fid."; Basil, "Ep. ccxiv", 4; Gregory Nazianzen, "Or. xxv", 16). He is autoagiotes, the hypostatic holiness of God, the holiness by which God is holy. Just as the Son is the Wisdom and Power by which God is wise and powerful, so the Spirit is the Holiness by which He is holy. Had there ever been a time, as the Macedonians dared to say, when the Holy Spirit was not, then at that time God would have not been holy (St. Gregory Nazianzen, "Orat. xxxi", 4). On the other hand, pneuma was often understood in the light of John 10:22 where Christ, appearing to the Apostles, breathed on them and conferred on them the Holy Spirit. He is the breath of Christ (John Damascene, "Fid. orth.", 1, viii), breathed by Him into us, and dwelling in us as the breath of life by which we enjoy the supernatural life of God's children (Cyril of Alexandria, "Thesaurus"; cf. Petav., "De Trin", V, viii). The office of the Holy Spirit in thus elevating us to the supernatural order is, however, conceived in a manner somewhat different from that of Western theologians. According to Western doctrine, God bestows on man sanctifying grace, and consequent on that gift the Three Persons come to his soul. In Greek theology the order is reversed: the Holy Spirit does not come to us because we have received

sanctifying grace; but it is through His presence we receive the gift. He is the seal, Himself impressing on us the Divine image. That Divine image is indeed realized in us, but the seal must be present to secure the continued existence of the impression. Apart from Him it is not found (Origen, "In Joan. ii", vi; Didymus, "De Spiritu Sancto", x, 11; Athanasius, "Ep. ad. Serap.", III, iii). This Union with the Holy Spirit constitutes our deification (theopoiesis). Inasmuch as He is the image of Christ, He imprints the likeness of Christ upon us; since Christ is the image of the Father, we too receive the true character of God's children (Athanasius, loc.cit.; Gregory Nazianzen, "Orat. xxxi", 4). It is in reference to this work in our regard that in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed the Holy Spirit is termed the Giver of life (zoopoios). In the West we more naturally speak of grace as the life of the soul. But to the Greeks it was the Spirit through whose personal presence we live. Just as God gave natural life to Adam by breathing into his inanimate frame the breath of life, so did Christ give spiritual life to us when He bestowed on us the gift of the Holy Ghost. VI. THE DOCTRINE AS INTERPRETED IN LATIN THEOLOGY The transition to the Latin theology of the Trinity was the work of St. Augustine. Western theologians have never departed from the main lines which he laid down, although in the Golden Age of Scholasticism his system was developed, its details completed, and its terminology perfected. It received its final and classical form from St. Thomas Aquinas. But it is necessary first to indicate in what consisted the transition effected by St. Augustine. This may be summed up in three points: * He views the Divine Nature as prior to the Personalities. Deus is for him not God the Father,but the Trinity. This was a step of the first importance, safeguarding as it did alike the unity of God and the equality of the Persons in a manner which the Greek system could never do. As we have seen, one at least of the Greeks, Didymus, had adopted this standpoint and it is possible that Augustine may have derived this method of viewing the mystery from him. But to make it the basis for the whole treatment of the doctrine was the work of Augustine's genius. * He insists that every external operation God is due to the whole Trinity, and cannot be attributed to one Person alone, save by appropriation (see HOLY GHOST). The Greek Fathers had, as we have seen, been led to affirm that the action (energeia) of the Three Persons was one, and one alone. But the doctrine of appropriation was unknown to them, and thus the value of this conclusion was obscured by a traditional theology implying the distinct activities of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. * By indicating the analogy between the two processions within the Godhead and the internal acts of thought and will in the human mind (De Trin., IX, iii, 3; X, xi, 17), he became the founder of the psychological theory of the Trinity, which, with a very few exceptions, was accepted by every subsequent Latin writer. In the following exposition of the Latin doctrines, we shall follow St. Thomas Aquinas, whose treatment of the doctrine is now universally accepted by Catholic theologians. It should be observed, however, that this is not the only form in which the psychological theory has been

proposed. Thus Richard of St. Victor, Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure, while adhering in the main to Western tradition, were more influenced by Greek thought, and give us a system differing somewhat from that of St. Thomas. A. The Son Among the terms empIoyed in Scripture to designate the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is the Word (John 1:1). This is understood by St. Thomas of the Verbum mentale, or intellectual concept. As applied to the Son, the name, he holds, signifies that He proceeds from the Father as the term of an intellectual procession, in a manner analogous to that in which a concept is generated by the human mind in all acts of natural knowledge. It is, indeed, of faith that the Son proceeds from the Father by a veritable generation. He is, says the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, begotten before all worlds". But the Procession of a Divine Person as the term of the act by which God knows His own nature is rightly called generation. This may be readily shown. As an act of intellectual conception, it necessarily produces the likeness of the object known. And further, being Divine action, it is not an accidental act resulting in a term, itself a mere accident, but the act is the very substance of the Divinity, and the term is likewise substantial. A process tending necessarily to the production of a substantial term like in nature to the Person from Whom it proceeds is a process of generation. In regard to this view as to the procession of the Son, a difficulty was felt by St. Anselm (Monol., lxiv) on the score that it would seem to involve that each of the Three Persons must needs generate a subsistent Word. Since all the Powers possess the same mind, does it not follow, he asked, that in each case thought produces a similar term? This difficulty St. Thomas succeeds in removing. According to his psychology the formation of a concept is not essential to thought as such, though absolutely requisite to all natural human knowledge. There is, therefore, no ground in reason, apart from revelation, for holding that the Divine intellect produces a Verbum mentale. It is the testimony of Scripture alone which tells us that the Father has from all eternity begotten His consubstantial Word. But neither reason nor revelation suggests it in the case of the Second and Third Persons (I:34:1, ad 3). Not a few writers of great weight hold that there is sufficient consensus among the Fathers and Scholastic theologians as to the meaning of the names Word and Wisdom (Proverbs 8), applied to the Son, for us to regard the intellectual procession of the Second Person as at least theologically certain, if not a revealed truth (cf. Suarez, "De Trin.", I, v, p. 4; Petav., VI, i, 7; Franzelin, "De Trin.", Thesis xxvi). This, however, seems to be an exaggeration. The immense majority of the Greek Fathers, as we have already noticed, interpret logos of the spoken word, and consider the significance of the name to lie not in any teaching as to intellectual procession, but in the fact that it implies a mode of generation devoid of all passion. Nor is the tradition as to the interpretation of Proverbs 8, in any sense unanimous. In view of these facts the opinion of those theologians seems the sounder who regard this explanation of the procession simply as a theological opinion of great probability and harmonizing well with revealed truth.

B. The Holy Spirit Just as the Son proceeds as the term of the immanent act of the intellect, so does the Holy Spirit proceed as the term of the act of the Divine will. In human love, as St. Thomas teaches (I:27:3), even though the object be external to us, yet the immanent act of love arouses in the soul a state of ardour which is, as it were, an impression of the thing loved. In virtue of this the object of love is present to our affections, much as, by means of the concept, the object of thought is present to our intellect. This experience is the term of the internal act. The Holy Spirit, it is contended, proceeds from the Father and the Son as the term of the love by which God loves Himself. He is not the love of God in the sense of being Himself formally the love by which God loves; but in loving Himself God breathes forth this subsistent term. He is Hypostatic Love. Here, however, it is necessary to safeguard a point of revealed doctrine. It is of faith that the procession of the Holy Spirit is not generation. The Son is "the only begotten of the Father" (John 1:14). And the Athanasian Creed expressly lays it down that the Holy Ghost is "from the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding." If the immanent act of the intellect is rightly termed generation, on what grounds can that name be denied to the act of the will? The answers given in reply to this difficulty by St. Thomas, Richard of St. Victor, and Alexander of Hales are very different. It will be sufficient here to note St. Thomas's solution. Intellectual procession, he says, is of its very nature the production of a term in the likeness of the thing conceived. This is not so in regard to the act of the will. Here the primary result is simply to attract the subject to the object of his love. This difference in the acts explains why the name generation is applicable only to the act of the intellect. Generation is essentially the production of like by like. And no process which is not essentially of that character can claim the name. The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit by means of the act of the Divine will is due entirely to Augustine. It is nowhere found among the Greeks, who simply declare the procession of the Spirit to be beyond our comprehension, nor is it found in the Latins before his time. He mentions the opinion with favour in the "De fide et symbolo" (A.D. 393); and in the "De Trinitate" (A.D. 415) develops it at length. His teaching was accepted by the West. The Scholastics seek for Scriptural support for it in the name Holy Spirit. This must, they argue, be, like the names Father and Son, a name expressive of a relation within the Godhead proper to the Person who bears it. Now the attribute holy, as applied to person or thing, signifies that the being of which it is affirmed is devoted to God. It follows therefore that, when applied to a Divine Person as designating the relation uniting Him to the other Persons, it must signify that the procession determining His origin is one which of its nature involves devotion to God. But that by which any person is devoted to God is love. The argument is ingenious, but hardly convincing; and the same may be said of a somewhat similar piece of reasoning regarding the name Spirit (I:36:1). The Latin theory is a noble effort of the human reason to penetrate the verities which revelation has left veiled in mystery. It harmonizes, as we have said, with all the truths of faith. It is admirably adapted to assist us to a fuller comprehension of the fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion. But more than this must not be claimed. It does not possess the sanction of revelation.

C. The Divine Relations The existence of relations in the Godhead may be immediately inferred from the doctrine of processions, and as such is a truth of Revelation. Where there is a real procession the principle and the term are really related. Hence, both the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit must involve the existence of real and objective relations. This part of Trinitarian doctrine was familiar to the Greek Fathers. In answer to the Eunomian objection, that consubstantiality rendered any distinction between the Persons impossible, Gregory of Nyssa replies: "Though we hold that the nature [in the Three Persons] is not different, we do not deny the difference arising in regard of the source and that which proceeds from the source [ten katato aition kai to aitiaton diaphoran]; but in this alone do we admit that one Person differs from another" ("Quod non sunt tres dii"; cf. Gregory Nazianzen, "Or. theol.", V, ix; John Damascene, "F.O.", I, viii). Augustine insists that of the ten Aristotelean categories two, stance and relation, are found in God ("De Trin.", V, v). But it was at the hands the Scholastic theologians that the question received its full development. The results to which they led, though not to be reckoned as part of the dogma, were found to throw great light upon the mystery, and to be of vast service in the objections urged against it. From the fact that there are two processions in Godhead, each involving both a principle and term, it follows that there must be four relations, two origination (paternitas and spiratio) and two of procession (filiatio and processio). These relations are what constitute the distinction between the Persons. They cannot be digtinguished by any absolute attribute, for every absolute attribute must belong to the infinite Divine Nature and this is common to the Three Persons. Whatever distinction there is must be in the relations alone. This conclusion is held as absolutely certain by all theologians. Equivalently contained in the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, it was clearly enunciated by St. Anselm ("De process. Sp. S.", ii) and received ecclesiastical sanction in the "Decretum pro Jacobitis" in the form: "[In divinis] omnia sunt unum ubi non obviat relationis oppositio." Since this is so, it is manifest that the four relations suppose but Three Persons. For there is no relative opposition between spiration on the one hand and either paternity or filiation on the other. Hence the attribute of spiration is found in conjunction with each of these, and in virtue of it they are each distinguished from procession. As they share one and the same Divine Nature, so they possess the same virtus spirationis, and thus constitute a single originating principle of the Holy Spirit. Inasmuch as the relations, and they alone, are distinct realities in the Godhead, it follows that the Divine Persons are none other than these relations. The Father is the Divine Paternity, the Son the Divine Filiation, the Holy Spirit the Divine Procession. Here it must be borne in mind that the relations are not mere accidental determinations as these abstract terms might suggest. Whatever is in God must needs be subsistent. He is the Supreme Substance, transcending the divisions of the Aristotelean categories. Hence, at one and the same time He is both substance and relation. (How it is that there should be in God real relations, though it is altogether impossible that quantity or quality should be found in Him, is a question involving a discussion regarding the metaphysics of relations, which would be out of place in an article such as the present.)

It will be seen that the doctrine of the Divine relations provides an answer to the objection that the dogma of the Trinity involves the falsity of the axiom that things which are identical with the same thing are identical one with another. We reply that the axiom is perfectly true in regard to absolute entities, to which alone it refers. But in the dogma of the Trinity when we affirm that the Father and Son are alike identical with the Divine Essence, we are affirming that the Supreme Infinite Substance is identical not with two absolute entities, but with each of two relations. These relations, in virtue of their nature as correlatives, are necessarily opposed the one to the other and therefore different. Again it is said that if there are Three Persons in the Godhead none can be infinite, for each must lack something which the others possess. We reply that a relation, viewed precisely as such, is not, like quantity or quality, an intrinsic perfection. When we affirm again it is relation of anything, we affirm that it regards something other than itself. The whole perfection of the Godhead is contained in the one infinite Divine Essence. The Father is that Essence as it eternally regards the Son and the Spirit; the Son is that Essence as it eternally regards the Father and the Spirit; the Holy Spirit is that Essence as it eternally regards the Father and the Son. But the eternal regard by which each of the Three Persons is constituted is not an addition to the infinite perfection of the Godhead. The theory of relations also indicates the solution to the difficulty now most frequently proposed by anti-Trinitarians. It is urged that since there are Three Persons there must be three self-consciousnesses: but the Divine mind ex hypothesi is one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, the dogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole objection rests on a petitio principii: for it takes for granted the identification of person and of mind with self-consciousness. This identification is rejected by Catholic philosophers as altogether misleading. Neither person nor mind is self-consciousness; though a person must needs possess self-consciousness, and consciousness attests the existence of mind (see PERSONALITY). Granted that in the infinite mind, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence. It is impossible to establish that, in regard of the infinite mind, such a supposition involves a contradiction. The question was raised by the Scholastics: In what sense are we to understand the Divine act of generation? As we conceive things, the relations of paternity and filiation are due to an act by which the Father generates the Son; the relations of spiration and procession, to an act by which Father and Son breathe forth the Holy Spirit. St. Thomas replies that the acts are identical with the relations of generation and spiration; only the mode of expression on our part is different (I:41:3, ad 2). This is due to the fact that the forms alike of our thought and our language are moulded upon the material world in which we live. In this world origination is in every case due to the effecting of a change. We call the effecting of the change action, and its reception passion. Thus, action and passion are different from the permanent relations consequent on them. But in the Godhead origination is eternal: it is not the result of change. Hence the term signifying action denotes not the production of the relation, but purely the relation of the Originator to the Originated. The terminology is unavoidable because the limitations of our experience force us to

represent this relation as due to an act. Indeed throughout this whole subject we are hampered by the imperfection of human language as an instrument wherewith to express verities higher than the facts of the world. When, for instance, we say that the Son possesses filiation and spiration the terms seem to suggest that these are forms inherent in Him as in a subject. We know, indeed, that in the Divine Persons there can be no composition: they are absolutely simple. Yet we are forced to speak thus: for the one Personality, not withstanding its simplicity, is related to both the others, and by different relations. We cannot express this save by attributing to Him filiation and spiration (I:32:2). D. Divine Mission It has been seen that every action of God in regard of the created world proceeds from the Three Persons indifferently. In what sense, then, are we to understand such texts as "God sent . . . his Son into the world" (John 3:17), and "the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father" (John 15:26)? What is meant by the mission of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? To this it is answered that mission supposes two conditions: * That the person sent should in some way proceed from the sender and * that the person sent should come to be at the place indicated. The procession, however, may take place in various ways -- by command, or counsel, or even origination. Thus we say that a king sends a messenger, and that a tree sends forth buds. The second condition, too, is satisfied either if the person sent comes to be somewhere where previously he was not, or if, although he was already there, he comes to be there in a new manner. Though God the Son was already present in the world by reason of His Godhead, His Incarnation made Him present there in a new way. In virtue of this new presence and of His procession from the Father, He is rightly said to have been sent into the world. So, too, in regard to the mission of the Holy Spirit. The gift of grace renders the Blessed Trinity present to the soul in a new manner: that is, as the object of direct, though inchoative, knowledge and as the object of experimental love. By reason of this new mode of presence common to the whole Trinity, the Second and the Third Persons, inasmuch as each receives the Divine Nature by means of a procession, may be said to be sent into the soul. (See also HOLY GHOST; LOGOS; MONOTHEISTS; UNITARIANS.)

SOUL
En la Biblia la palabra alma denota a veces toda la vida humana o toda la persona humana (Hechos 2:27), pero tambin lo que hay de ms ntimo en el hombre (Mateo 26:38; Juan 12:27) y de ms valor en l (Mateo 10:28; Mateo 16:26; 2 Macabeos 6:30), aqullo por lo cual es particularmente imagen de Dios: alma significa el principio espiritual en el hombre. The Bible clearly teaches that the human spirit continues a conscious existence after death: 2 Corinthians 5:8 "We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord." See also: Luke 16:19-31; Philippians 1:23-24; Revelation 6:9-11.

THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST

From Cathecism : http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c2a7.htm#I ARTICLE 7 "FROM THENCE HE WILL COME AGAIN TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD" I. HE WILL COME AGAIN IN GLORY Christ already reigns through the Church. . . 668 "Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living."549 Christ's Ascension into heaven signifies his participation, in his humanity, in God's power and authority. Jesus Christ is Lord: he possesses all power in heaven and on earth. He is "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion", for the Father "has put all things under his feet."550 Christ is Lord of the cosmos and of history. In him human history and indeed all creation are "set forth" and transcendently fulfilled.551 669 As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body.552 Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church. The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church. "The kingdom of Christ [is] already present in mystery", "on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom".553 670 Since the Ascension God's plan has entered into its fulfillment. We are already at "the last hour".554 "Already the final age of the world is with us, and the renewal of the world is irrevocably under way; it is even now anticipated in a certain real way, for the Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real but imperfect."555 Christ's kingdom already manifests its presence through the miraculous signs that attend its proclamation by the Church.556 . . .until all things are subjected to him 671 Though already present in his Church, Christ's reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled "with power and great glory" by the King's return to earth.557 This reign is still under attack by the evil

powers, even though they have been defeated definitively by Christ's Passover.557 Until everything is subject to him, "until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God."559 That is why Christians pray, above all in the Eucharist, to hasten Christ's return by saying to him:560 Marana tha! "Our Lord, come!"561 672 Before his Ascension Christ affirmed that the hour had not yet come for the glorious establishment of the messianic kingdom awaited by Israel562 which, according to the prophets, was to bring all men the definitive order of justice, love and peace.563 According to the Lord, the present time is the time of the Spirit and of witness, but also a time still marked by "distress" and the trial of evil which does not spare the Church564 and ushers in the struggles of the last days. It is a time of waiting and watching.565 The glorious advent of Christ, the hope of Israel 673 Since the Ascension Christ's coming in glory has been imminent,566 even though "it is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority."567. This eschatological coming could be accomplished at any moment, even if both it and the final trial that will precede it are "delayed".568 674 The glorious Messiah's coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by "all Israel", for "a hardening has come upon part of Israel" in their "unbelief" toward Jesus.569 St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old."570 St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"571 The "full inclusion" of the Jews in the Messiah's salvation, in the wake of "the full number of the Gentiles",572 will enable the People of God to achieve "the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", in which "God may be all in all".573 The Church's ultimate trial 675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.574 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place

of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.576 676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,577 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.578 677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.579 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.580 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.

549 Rom 14:9. 550 Eph 1:20-22. 551 Eph 1:10; cf. 4:10; 1 Cor 15:24,27-28. 552 Cf. Eph 1:22. 553 LG 3; 5; cf. Eph 4:11-13. 554 1 Jn 2:18; cf. 1 Pet 4:7. 555 LG 48 3; cf. 1 Cor 10:11. 556 Cf. Mk 16:17-18,20. 557 Lk 21:27; cf. Mt 25:31. 558 Cf. 2 Thess 2:7. 559 LG 48 3; cf. 2 Pet 3:13; Rom 8:19-22; 1 Cor 15:28. 560 Cf. 1 Cor 11:26; 2 Pet 3:11-12. 561 1 Cor 16:22; Rev 22:17,20. 562 Cf. Acts 1:6-7. 563 Cf. Isa 11:1-9. 564 Cf. Acts 1:8; 1 Cor 7:26; Eph 5:16; 1 Pet 4:17. 565 Cf. Mt 25:1, 13; Mk 13:33-37; 1 Jn 2:18; 4:3; 1 Tim 4:1. 566 Cf. Rev 22:20. 567 Acts 1:7; Cf. Mk 13:32. 568 Cf. Mt 24:44; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:3-12.

569 Rom 11:20-26; cf. Mt 23:39. 570 Acts 3:19-21. 571 Rom 11:15. 572 Rom 11:12, 25; cf. Lk 21:24. 573 Eph 4:13; 1 Cor 15:28. 574 Cf. Lk 18:8; Mt 24:12. 575 Cf. Lk 21:12; Jn 15:19-20. 576 Cf. 2 Thess 2:4-12; 1 Thess 5:2-3; 2 Jn 7; 1 Jn 2:18,22. 577 Cf. DS 3839. 578 Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, condemning the "false mysticism" of this "counterfeit of the redemption of the lowly"; cf. GS 20-21. 579 Cf. Rev 19:1-9. 580 Cf Rev 13:8; 20:7-10; 21:2-4. 581 Cf. Rev 20:12 2 Pet 3:12-13

http://www.wcr.ab.ca/catechism/cat29.shtml The Second Coming of Christ By GLEN ARGAN WCR Editor Read: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 668-682 The brief section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church we examine this week has to do with the second coming of Christ. Its existence is curious, given that the full discussion of "final things" -- the last judgment, the bodily resurrection, heaven, hell and purgatory -- comes later in the catechism (no. 988-1060). Wouldn't it make more sense to include the discussion of Christ's second coming with that of the last judgment? Perhaps. But there are three reasons for making the second coming a separate topic.

First, the catechism follows the order of the Creed. The catechism's authors would naturally be loathe to skip the seventh article of the Creed -- "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" -- and just incorporate it under the 12th article -- "I believe in life everlasting." Second, by including this short section, the catechism is able to link Christ's second coming with his resurrection and to emphasize that the second coming is of lesser importance than the salvation which has already been won for humanity through the paschal mystery. "End times" are already under way, a fact which is sometimes overlooked by those who anticipate the end of the world. Third, this section stands out clearly as an antidote to various movements of millenarism. Narrowly speaking, millenarism refers to the belief that Christ and his followers will establish a 1,000-year rule before the final judgment. This view was condemned by the church in 1944. The church believes that the second coming is followed almost immediately by the establishment of Christ's eternal kingdom. Despite the condemnation, forms of Protestant fundamentalism which are millenial in their focus are widespread and growing. The spread of movements which teach that the pope is the Antichrist and the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon is a matter of utmost pastoral concern in some parts of the world. For those who are combatting such views, the catechism in this section provides a blizzard of biblical references to help in that task. But as well as responding to this form of Protestant fundamentalism, the catechism also responds to the view that the church can be exhaustively defined by its efforts at this-worldly transformation. One task of Christ's faithful is to build right relations in this world as a sign and anticipation of the eternal kingdom. But we must be careful not be obsessively focused on this task. We live ultimately for a kingdom which is not of this world and not of human making. We do not create salvation through our good works, although our good actions can be used by Christ in the formation of his kingdom. Our job is to receive salvation, not to earn salvation through obsessive busyness. With all these considerations in mind, it is worth scanning the points which the catechism makes here about the end times: * We are already in end times and have been since Christ's ascension (no. 670). * The current era is "the time of the Spirit and of witness." Evil and suffering remain (no. 672). * Jesus Christ "possesses all power in heaven and on earth" (no. 668) and he "dwells on earth in his church" (no. 669).

* The church will pass away and Christ's reign will be fulfilled when he returns to earth (no. 671). * We don't know when the second coming will take place. It could be anytime (no. 673). * The second coming will not occur until "all Israel" repents and recognizes Jesus as Lord (No. 674). * Before the second coming there will be a final trial which will shake the faith of many believers (no. 675). * Related to this time of trial is the Antichrist, a movement or person through which humanity glorifies itself in place of God (no. 675-676). * God's triumph over evil will be realized at the last judgment (no. 677). * In the last judgment, there will be utter clarity about the spiritual and moral state of each person (no. 678). * By virtue of redeeming us by the cross, Christ has the right to cast definitive judgment on each person (no. 679). This is a brief, but fairly exhaustive, presentation of the church's view of the second coming. Built into any discussion of the final things is a call to conversion, a call to realize the crucial importance of our relationship with Christ. Our need not evoke fire and brimstone to emphasize that our choice of whether to follow Christ with our whole being will reverberate throughout eternity. Knowing the simple facts that Christ has saved us through his cross and resurrection and that he will come again in glory to establish an everlasting kingdom should, in themselves, be enough to lead us to do a searching inventory of our lives.

PARTICULAR AND GENERAL (LAST) JUDGEMENT

THE PARTICULAR JUDGMENT From Cathecism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#I 1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.592 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.593 1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595 -- or immediate and everlasting damnation.596 At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love. 592 Cf. 2 Tim 1:9-10. 593 Cf. Lk 16:22; 23:43; Mt 16:26; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil 1:23; Heb 9:27; 12:23. 594 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274):DS 857-858; Council of Florence (1439):DS 1304- 1306; Council of Trent (1563):DS 1820. 595 Cf. Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336):DS 1000-1001; John XXII, Ne super his (1334):DS 990. 596 Cf. Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336):DS 1002. 597 St. John of the Cross, Dichos 64.

From Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm Particular Judgment

Catholic Encyclopedia on CD-ROM Contains 11,632 articles. Browse off-line, ad-free, printer-friendly. Get it here for only $29.95 A. Dogma of Particular Judgment The Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment is this: that immediately after death the eternal destiny of each separated soul is decided by the just judgment of God. Although there has been no formal definition on this point, the dogma is clearly implied in the Union Decree of Eugene IV (1439), which declares that souls leaving their bodies in a state of grace, but in need of purification are cleansed in Purgatory, whereas souls that are perfectly pure are at once admitted to the beatific vision of the Godhead (ipsum Deum unum et trinum) and those who depart in actual mortal sin, or merely with original sin, are at once consigned to eternal punishment, the quality of which corresponds to their sin (paenis tamen disparibus). The doctrine is also in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus in 1274, in the Bull "Benedictus Deus" of Benedict XII, in 1336, and in the professions of faith of Gregory XIII and Benedict XIV. B. Existence of Particular Judgment Proved from Scripture Ecclesiastes 11:9; 12:1 sq.; and Hebrews 9:27, are sometimes quoted in proof of the particular judgment, but though these passages speak of a judgment after death, neither the context nor the force of the words proves that the sacred writer had in mind a judgment distinct from that at the end of the world. The Scriptural arguments in defence of the particular judgment must be indirect. There is no text of which we can certainly say that it expressly affirms this dogma but there are several which teach an immediate retribution after death and thereby clearly imply a particular judgment. Christ represents Lazarus and Dives as receiving their respective rewards immediately after death. They have always been regarded as types of the just man and the sinner. To the penitent thief it was promised that his soul instantly on leaving the body would be in the state of the blessed: "This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). St. Paul (II Corinthians 5) longs to be absent from the body that he may be present to the Lord, evidently understanding death to be the entrance into his reward (cf. Philemon 1:21 sq.). Ecclesiasticus 11:28-29 speaks of a retribution at the hour of death, but it may refer to a temporal punishment, such as sudden death in the midst of prosperity, the evil remembrance that survives the wicked or the misfortunes of their children. However, the other texts that have been quoted are sufficient to establish the strict conformity of the doctrine with Scripture teaching. (Cf. Acts 1:25; Apocalypse 20:4-6, 12-14.) C. Patristic Testimony Regarding Particular Judgment St. Augustine witnesses clearly and emphatically to this faith of the early Church. Writing to the

presbyter Peter, he criticizes the works of Vincentius Victor on the soul, pointing out that they contain nothing except what is vain or erroneous or mere commonplace, familiar to all Catholics. As an instance of the last, he cites Victor's interpretation of the parable of Lazarus and Dives. He writes: For with respect to that which he (Victor] most correctly and very soundly holds, namely, that souls are judged when they depart from the body, before they come to that judgment which must be passed on them when reunited to the body and are tormented or glorified in that same flesh which they here inhabited -- was that a matter of which you (Peter) were unaware? Who is so obstinate against the Gospel as not to perceive those things in the parable of that poor man carried after death to Abraham's bosom and of the rich man whose torments are set before us? (De anima et ejus origine, 11, n.8.) In the sermons of the Fathers occur graphic descriptions of the particular judgment (cf. S. Ephraem, "Sermo de secundo Adventu"; "Sermo in eos qui in Christo obdormiunt"). D. Heresies Lactantius is one of the few Catholic writers who disputed this doctrine (Divine Institutes VII:21). Among heretics the particular judgment was denied by Tatian and Vigilantius. The Hypnopsychites and the Thnetopsychites believed that at death the soul passed away, according to the former into a state of unconsciousness, according to the latter into temporary destruction. They believed that souls would arise at the resurrection of the body for judgment. This theory of "soul slumber" was defended by the Nestorians and Copts, and later by the Anabaptists, Socinians, and Arminians. Calvin (Inst. III, 25) holds that the final destiny is not decided till the last day. E. Prompt Fulfilment of Sentence The prompt fulfilment of the sentence is part of the dogma of particular judgment, but until the question was settled by the decision of Benedict XII, in 1332, there was much uncertainty regarding the fate of the departed in the period between death and the general resurrection. There was never any doubt that the penalty of loss (poena damni), the temporal or eternal forfeiture of the joys of Heaven, began from the moment of death. Likewise it was admitted from the earliest times that the punishment following death included other sufferings (poena sensus) than the penalty of loss (Justin, "Dial.", v). But whether the torment of fire was to be included among these sufferings, or whether it began only after the final judgment, was a question that gave rise to many divergent opinions. It was a common belief among the early Fathers that the devils will not suffer from the flames of hell until the end of the world. Regarding the reprobate souls there was a similar belief. Some of the Fathers contended that these souls do not suffer the torment of fire until reunited with their bodies in the resurrection, while others hesitated (cf. Tert., "De Test.

an.", iv). Many, on the contrary, clearly taught that the punishment of hell fire followed speedily upon the particular judgment (Hilary, In Ps. cxxxviii, 22). This is evident from the words of Gregory the Great: "just as happiness rejoices the elect, so it must be believed that from the day of their death fire burns the reprobate" (Dial., IV, 28). Early Christian writers also refer to a purgatorial fire in which souls not perfectly just are purified after death. Some of the early Fathers, misled by Millennarian errors, believed that the essential beatitude of Heaven is not enjoyed until the end of time. They supposed that during the interval between death and the resurrection the souls of the just dwell happily in a delightful abode, awaiting their final glorification. This was apparently the opinion of Sts. Justin and Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Clement of Alexandria, and St. Ambrose. According to others, only the martyrs and some other classes of saints are admitted at once to the supreme joys of heaven. It cannot, however, be inferred from these passages that all of the Fathers quoted believed that the vision of God is in most cases delayed till the day of judgment. Many of them in other parts of their works profess the Catholic doctrine either expressly or by implication through the acknowledgment of other dogmas in which it is contained, for instance, in that of the descent of Christ into Limbo, an article of the Creed which loses all significance unless it be admitted that the saints of the Old Testament were thereby liberated from this temporal penalty of loss and admitted to the vision of God. As to the passages which state that the supreme happiness of Heaven is not enjoyed till after the resurrection, they refer in many instances to an increase in the accidental joy of the blessed through the union of the soul with its glorified body, and do not signify that the essential happiness of heaven is not enjoyed till then. Notwithstanding the aberrations of some writers and the hesitation of others, the belief that since the death of Christ souls which are free from sin enter at once into the vision of God was always firmly held by the great body of Christians (cf. St. Cyprian, De exhort. mart.). As the earliest Acts of the Martyrs and Liturgies attest, the martyrs were persuaded of the prompt reward of their devotion. This belief is also evidenced by the ancient practice of honouring and invoking the saints, even those who were not martyrs. But the opposite error found adherents from time to time, and in the Middle Ages was warmly defended. The Second Council of Lyons (1274) declared that souls free from sin are at once received into heaven (mox in caelum recipi), but did not decide in what their state of beatitude consisted. A number of theologians maintained the opinion that until the resurrection the just do not enjoy the intuitive or facial vision of God, but are under the protection and consolation of the Humanity of Jesus Christ. Pope John XXII (1316-1334) at Avignon, as a private theologian, seems to have supported this view, but that he gave it any official sanction is a fable invented by the Fallibilists. His successor, Benedict XII, ended the controversy by the Bull "Benedictus Deus". F. Circumstances of Particular Judgment according to Theologians Theologians suppose that the particular judgment will be instantaneous, that in the moment of death the separated soul is internally illuminated as to its own guilt or innocence and of its own initiation takes its course either to hell, or to purgatory, or to heaven (Summa Theologica Supplement 69:2, 88:2). In confirmation of this opinion the text of St. Paul is cited: "Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their

thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ (Romans 2:15-16). The "Book of Judgment", in which all the deeds of men are written (Apocalypse 20:12), and the appearance of angels and demons to bear witness before the judgment seat are regarded as allegorical descriptions (St. Aug. "De Civ. Dei", XX, xiv). The common opinion is that the particular judgment will occur at the place of death (Suarez in III, Q, lix. a. 6, disp. 52)

http://www.wcr.ab.ca/catechism/cat46.shtml Judgment: Facing the Truth about our Lives By GLEN ARGAN WCR Editor Read: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1021 and 1038-1060 The brief story of the good thief tells of a man crucified with Jesus who saw the goodness of Jesus and the folly of his own ways (Luke 23:39-43). This good thief saw that he was getting the punishment he deserved. Despite the mocking rebukes of the other criminal and the soldiers, and despite the lack of any evidence that Jesus would one day exercise any sort of power, this thief made the remarkable request, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." In response to this confession of faith and despite whatever dastardly deed this man was being executed for, Jesus responded simply, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." There are many things one might ponder about this stunning incident from the life of Jesus. But one thing the church has seen in this story is a witness to a judgment each person must face at the end of life. Each person will meet Jesus to be confronted alone with the truth of their life. Those who confess faith in Jesus and sorrow for their sins will enter immediately into paradise. Luke, however, says nothing about the fate of the criminal on the other side of Jesus. Matthew describes a different judgment scene, in fact, a different judgment. Again, Jesus speaks: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him . . ." (Matthew 25:31ff).

In one case, Jesus on the cross speaking to one man; in the other case, Jesus in glory faces "all the nations." Two judgments -- one at the end of each person's life, the other at the end of time. Why do we need to be judged twice? The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the particular judgment each person faces at the end of life: "Each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith" (no. 1021). But this is not enough. We do not each live on an island. The effects of our actions reverberate long after our deaths. Only at the end of time will we be able to see, "even to the furthest consequences, the good each person has done or failed to do during his earthly life" (no. 1039). So, at this last judgment, we will be judged on the opportunities to do good which we have either seized or ignored. Jesus in this account, does not even take into account the heinous deeds we have done, only the good we have done or failed to do. Moreover, all the nations will be there to witness the truth about us, to see how we have loved or failed to love. Many will ask why we need even one judgment. Why doesn't Jesus welcome all of us into his kingdom? All are sinners. How can God fairly decide to let some sinners "inherit the kingdom" and send others "away into eternal punishment?" Yet the refusal to accept judgment is linked with the stubborn denial of sin. We have the possibility of sharing in divine life partly because Christ has made that possibility available to us, but also because we are free, self-determining agents of our fate. God has given us freedom to either "delight (in) the law of the Lord" or to "be driven away by the wind" (Psalm 1). The possibility of eternal life contains within it the peril of eternal punishment. All are sinners, yet some, like the good thief, admit that the treachery of their own lives stands in sharp contrast with the unfailing goodness of God. They face the truth and are humbled by it. Others would like to be God, replacing God's laws with their own whims. Such a life is a lie. St. John put it this way: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:8-9). So it was at the crucifixion. The self-righteous ones, blind to the truth, perhaps even willfully blind, mocked Jesus. But one criminal saw the profound goodness of Jesus. Because he admitted his own sin and called on Jesus to remember him, he was welcomed into Jesus' everlasting kingdom.

THE GENERAL JUDGEMENT From Cathecism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c2a7.htm#I 678 Following in the steps of the prophets and John the Baptist, Jesus announced the judgment of the Last Day in his preaching.582 Then will the conduct of each one and the secrets of hearts be brought to light.583 Then will the culpable unbelief that counted the offer of God's grace as nothing be condemned.584 Our attitude to our neighbor will disclose acceptance or refusal of grace and divine love.585 On the Last Day Jesus will say: "Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."586 679 Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgment on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world. He "acquired" this right by his cross. The Father has given "all judgment to the Son".587 Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself.588 By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one's works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.589 IN BRIEF 680 Christ the Lord already reigns through the Church, but all the things of this world are not yet subjected to him. The triumph of Christ's kingdom will not come about without one last assault by the powers of evil. 681 On Judgment Day at the end of the world, Christ will come in glory to achieve the definitive triumph of good over evil which, like the wheat and the tares, have grown up together in the course of history. 682 When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works, and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace. 582 Cf. Dan 7:10; Joel 3-4; Mal 3:19; Mt 3:7-12. 583 Cf Mk 12:38-40; Lk 12:1-3; Jn 3:20-21; Rom 2:16; 1 Cor 4:5. 584 Cf. Mt 11:20-24; 12:41-42.

585 Cf. Mt 5:22; 7:1-5. 586 Mt 25:40. 587 Jn 5:22; cf. 5:27; Mt 25:31; Acts 10:42; 17:31; 2 Tim 4:1. 588 Cf. Lk 21:12; Jn 15:19-20. 589 Cf. Jn 3:18; 12:48; Mt 12:32; 1 Cor 3:12-15; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-31.

From Cathecism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#I V. THE LAST JUDGMENT 1038 The resurrection of all the dead, "of both the just and the unjust,"623 will precede the Last Judgment. This will be "the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment."624 Then Christ will come "in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . . Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. . . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."625 1039 In the presence of Christ, who is Truth itself, the truth of each man's relationship with God will be laid bare.626 The Last Judgment will reveal even to its furthest consequences the good each person has done or failed to do during his earthly life: All that the wicked do is recorded, and they do not know. When "our God comes, he does not keep silence.". . . he will turn towards those at his left hand: . . . "I placed my poor little ones on earth for you. I as their head was seated in heaven at the right hand of my Father - but on earth my members were suffering, my members on earth were in need. If you gave anything to my members, what you gave would reach their Head. Would that you had known that my little ones were in need when I placed them on earth for you and appointed them your stewards to bring your good works into my treasury. But you have placed nothing in their hands; therefore you have found nothing in my presence."627 1040 The Last Judgment will come when Christ returns in glory. Only the Father knows the day and the hour; only he determines the moment of its coming. Then through his Son Jesus Christ he will pronounce the final word on all history. We shall know the ultimate meaning of the whole work of creation and of the entire economy of salvation and understand the marvelous ways by which his Providence led everything towards its final end. The Last Judgment will reveal that God's justice triumphs over all the injustices committed by his creatures and that God's love is

stronger than death.628 1041 The message of the Last Judgment calls men to conversion while God is still giving them "the acceptable time, . . . the day of salvation."629 It inspires a holy fear of God and commits them to the justice of the Kingdom of God. It proclaims the "blessed hope" of the Lord's return, when he will come "to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed."630 623 Acts 24:15. 624 Jn 5:28-29. 625 Mt 25:31,32,46. 626 Cf. Jn 12:49. 627 St. Augustine, Sermo 18, 4:PL 38,130-131; cf. Ps 50:3. 628 Cf. Song 8:6. 629 2 Cor 6:2. 630 Titus 2:13; 2 Thess 1:10.

From Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm General Judgment (Judicium Universale, Last Judgment). I. EXISTENCE OF THE GENERAL JUDGMENT 1. Few truths are more often or more clearly proclaimed in Scripture than that of the general judgment. To it the prophets of the Old Testament refer when they speak of the "Day of the Lord" (Joel 2:31; Ezekiel 13:5; Isaiah 2:12), in which the nations will be summoned to judgment. In the New Testament the second Parusia, or coming of Christ as Judge of the world, is an oft-repeated doctrine. The Saviour Himself not only foretells the event but graphically portrays its circumstances (Matthew 24:27 sqq.; 25:31 sqq.). The Apostles give a most prominent place to this doctrine in their preaching (Acts 10:42; 17:31) and writings (Romans 2:5-16; 14:10; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:5; James 5:7). Besides the name Parusia (parousia), or Advent (1 Corinthians 15:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:19), the Second Coming is also called Epiphany, epiphaneia, or Appearance (2 Thessalonians 2:8; 1 Timothy

6:14; 2 Timothy 4:1; Titus 2:13), and Apocalypse (apokalypsis), or Revelation (2 Thessalonians 2:7; 1 Peter 4:13). The time of the Second Coming is spoken of as "that Day" (2 Timothy 4:8), "the day of the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 5:2), "the day of Christ" (Philemon 1:6), "the day of the Son of Man" (Luke 17:30), "the last day" (John 6:39-40). 2. The belief in the general judgment has prevailed at all times and in all places within the Church. It is contained as an article of faith in all the ancient creeds: "He ascended into heaven. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead" (Apostles' Creed). He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead" (Nicene Creed). "From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead, at whose coming all men must rise with their bodies and are to render an account of their deeds" (Athanasian Creed). Relying on the authority of Papias, several Fathers of the first four centuries advanced the theory of a thousand years' terrestrial reign of Christ with the saints to precede the end of the World (see article on MILLENNIUM). Though this idea is interwoven with the eschatological teachings of those writers, it in no way detracted from their belief in a universal world-judgment. Patristic testimony to this dogma is clear and unanimous. 3. The Roman Catechism thus explains why, besides the particular judgment of each individual, a general one should also be passed on the assembled world: "The first reason is founded on the circumstances that most augment the rewards or aggravate the punishments of the dead. Those who depart this life sometimes leave behind them children who imitate the conduct of their parents, descendants, followers; and others who adhere to and advocate the example, the language, the conduct of those on whom they depend, and whose example they follow; and as the good or bad influence or example, affecting as it does the conduct of many, is to terminate only with this world; justice demands that, in order to form a proper estimate of the good or bad actions of all, a general judgment should take place. . . . Finally, it was important to prove, that in prosperity and adversity, which are sometimes the promiscuous lot of the good and of the bad, everything is ordered by an all-wise, all-just, and all-ruling Providence: it was therefore necessary not only that rewards and punishments should await us in the next life but that they should be awarded by a public and general judgment." II. SIGNS THAT ARE TO PRECEDE THE GENERAL JUDGMENT The Scriptures mention certain events which are to take place before the final judgment. These predictions were not intended to serve as indications of the exact time of the judgment, for that day and hour are known only to the Father, and will come when least expected. They were meant to foreshadow the last judgment and to keep the end of the world present to the minds of Christians, without, however, exciting useless curiosity and vain fears. Theologians usually enumerate the following nine events as signs of the last judgment: 1. General Preaching of the Christian Religion. Concerning this sign the Saviour says: "And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and

then shall the consummation come" (Matthew 24:14). This sign was understood by Chrysostom and Theophilus as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, but, according to the majority of interpreters, Christ is here speaking of the end of the world. 2. Conversion of the Jews. According to the interpretation of the Fathers, the conversion of the Jews towards the end of the world is foretold by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (11:25-26): "For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery, . . . that blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob". 3. Return of Enoch and Elijah. The belief that these two men, who have never tasted death, are reserved for the last times to be precursors of the Second Advent was practically unanimous among the Fathers, which belief they base on several texts of Scripture. (Concerning Elijah see Malachi 4:5-6; Ecclesiasticus 48:10; Matthew 17:11; concerning Enoch see Ecclesiasticus 44:16.) 4. A Great Apostasy. As to this event St. Paul admonishes the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:3) that they must not be terrified, as if the day of the Lord were at hand, for there must first come a revolt (he apostasia).The Fathers and interpreters understand by this revolt a great reduction in the number of the faithful through the abandonment of the Christian religion by many nations. Some commentators cite as confirmatory of this belief the words of Christ: "But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?" (Luke 18:8). 5. The Reign of Antichrist. In the passage above mentioned (2 Thessalonians 2:3 sqq.) St. Paul indicates as another sign of the day of the Lord, the revelation of the man of sin, the son of perdition. "The man of sin" here described is generally identified with the Antichrist, who, says St. John (1 John 2:18), is to come in the last days. Although much obscurity and difference of opinion prevails on this subject, it is generally admitted from the foregoing and other texts that before the Second Coming there will arise a powerful adversary of Christ, who will seduce the nations by his wonders, and persecute the Church. 6. Extraordinary Perturbations of Nature. The Scriptures clearly indicate that the judgment will be preceded by unwonted and terrifying disturbances of the physical universe (Matthew 24:29; Luke 21:25-26). The wars, pestilences, famines, and earthquakes foretold in Matthew 24:6 sq., are also understood by some writers as among the calamities of the last times. 7. The Universal Conflagration. In the Apostolic writings we are told that the end of the world will be brought about through a general conflagration, which, however, will not annihilate the present creation, but will change its form and appearance (2 Peter 3:10-13; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:2; Apocalypse 3:3, and 16:15). Natural science shows the possibility of such a catastrophe

being produced in the ordinary course of events, but theologians generally tend to believe that its origin will be entirely miraculous. 8. The Trumpet of Resurrection. Several texts in the New Testament make mention of a voice or trumpet which will awaken the dead to resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:15; John 5:28). According to St. Thomas (Supplement 86:2) there is reference in these passages either to the voice or to the apparition of Christ, which will cause the resurrection of the dead. 9. "The Sign of the Son of Man Appearing in the Heavens." In Matthew 24:30, this is indicated as the sign immediately preceding the appearance of Christ to judge the world. By this sign the Fathers of the Church generally understand the appearance in the sky of the Cross on which the Saviour died or else of a wonderful cross of light.

III. CIRCUMSTANCES ACCOMPANYING THE GENERAL JUDGMENT 1. Time. As was stated above, the signs that are to precede the judgment give no accurate indication of the time when it will occur (Mark 13:32). When the Disciples asked the Saviour: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" He answered: "It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Acts 1:6-7). The uncertainty of the day of judgment is continually urged by Christ and the Apostles as an incentive to vigilance. The day of the Lord will come "as a thief" (Matthew 24:42-43), like lightning suddenly appearing (Matthew 24:27), like a snare (Luke 21:34), as the Deluge (Matthew 24:37). 2. Place of the Judgment. All the texts in which mention is made of the Parusia, or Second Coming, seem to imply clearly enough that the general judgment will take place on the earth. Some commentators infer from 1 Thessalonians 4:16, that the judgment will be held in the air, the newly risen being carried into the clouds to meet Christ; according to others the prophecy of Joel (3:1 sq.) places the last judgment in the Valley of Josaphat. 3. The Coming of the Judge. That this judgment is ascribed to Christ, not only as God, but also as Man, is expressly declared in Scripture; for although the power of judging is common to all the Persons of the Trinity, yet it is specially attributed to the Son, because to Him also in a special manner is ascribed wisdom. But that as Man He will judge the world is confirmed by Christ Himself (John 5:26-27). At the Second Coming Christ will appear in the heavens, seated on a cloud and surrounded by the angelic hosts (Matthew 16:27; 24:30; 25:31). The angels will minister to the Judge by bringing all before Him (Matthew 24:31). The elect will aid Christ in a judicial capacity (1 Corinthians 6:2). The lives of the just will in themselves be a condemnation of the wicked (Matthew 21:41), whose punishment they will publicly approve. But the Apostles will be judges of the world in a sense yet more exact, for the promise that they shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28) seems to imply a real

participation in judicial authority. According to a very probable opinion, this prerogative is extended to all who have faithfully fulfilled the counsels of the Gospel (Matthew 19:27-28). Nothing certain is known as to the manner in which this delegated authority will be exercised. St. Thomas conjectures that the greater saints will make known the sentence of Christ to others (Supplement 88:2). 4. Those to be Judged. All men, both good and bad, according to the Athanasian Creed, will appear in the judgment to give an account of their deeds. As to children that have personally done neither good nor evil, the baptized must be distinguished from the unbaptized. The former appear in the judgment, not to be judged, but only to hold the glory of Christ (Supplement 80:5), while the latter, ranked with the wicked, although not judged, will be enabled to realize the justice of their eternal loss (Suarez). The angels and the demons will not be judged directly, since their eternal destiny has already been fixed; yet, because they have exercised a certain influence over the fortunes of men, the sentence pronounced on the latter will have a corresponding effect on them also (Supplement 89:8). 5. Object of the Judgment. The judgment will embrace all works, good or bad, forgiven as well as forgiven sins, every idle word (Matthew 12:36), every secret thought (1 Corinthians 4:5). With the exception of Peter Lombard, theologians teach that even the secret sins of the just will be made manifest, in order that judgment may be made complete and that the justice and mercy of God may be glorified. This will not pain or embarrass the saints, but add to their glory, just as the repentance of St. Peter and St. Mary Magdalen is to these saints a source of joy and honour. 6. Form of the Judgment. The procedure of the judgment is described in Matthew 25:31-46, and in the Apocalypse 20:12. Commentators see in those passages allegorical descriptions intended to convey in a vivid manner the fact that in the last judgment the conduct and deserts of each individual will be made plain not only to his own conscience but to the knowledge of the assembled world. It is probable that no words will be spoken in the judgment, but that in one instant, through a Divine illumination, each creature will thoroughly understand his own moral condition and that of every fellow creature (Romans 2:15). Many believe, however, that the words of the sentence: "Come, ye blessed", etc. and "Depart from me", etc. will be really addressed by Christ to the multitude of the saved and the lost. IV. RESULTS OF THE GENERAL JUDGMENT With the fulfilment of the sentence pronounced in the last judgment the relations and the dealings of the Creator with the creature find their culmination, are explained and justified. The Divine purpose being accomplished, the human race will, as a consequence, attain its final destiny. The reign of Christ over mankind will be the sequel of the General Judgment.

http://www.wcr.ab.ca/catechism/cat46.shtml udgment: Facing the Truth about our Lives By GLEN ARGAN WCR Editor Read: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1021 and 1038-1060 The brief story of the good thief tells of a man crucified with Jesus who saw the goodness of Jesus and the folly of his own ways (Luke 23:39-43). This good thief saw that he was getting the punishment he deserved. Despite the mocking rebukes of the other criminal and the soldiers, and despite the lack of any evidence that Jesus would one day exercise any sort of power, this thief made the remarkable request, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." In response to this confession of faith and despite whatever dastardly deed this man was being executed for, Jesus responded simply, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." There are many things one might ponder about this stunning incident from the life of Jesus. But one thing the church has seen in this story is a witness to a judgment each person must face at the end of life. Each person will meet Jesus to be confronted alone with the truth of their life. Those who confess faith in Jesus and sorrow for their sins will enter immediately into paradise. Luke, however, says nothing about the fate of the criminal on the other side of Jesus. Matthew describes a different judgment scene, in fact, a different judgment. Again, Jesus speaks: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him . . ." (Matthew 25:31ff). In one case, Jesus on the cross speaking to one man; in the other case, Jesus in glory faces "all the nations." Two judgments -- one at the end of each person's life, the other at the end of time. Why do we need to be judged twice? The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the particular judgment each person faces at the end of life: "Each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith" (no. 1021).

But this is not enough. We do not each live on an island. The effects of our actions reverberate long after our deaths. Only at the end of time will we be able to see, "even to the furthest consequences, the good each person has done or failed to do during his earthly life" (no. 1039). So, at this last judgment, we will be judged on the opportunities to do good which we have either seized or ignored. Jesus in this account, does not even take into account the heinous deeds we have done, only the good we have done or failed to do. Moreover, all the nations will be there to witness the truth about us, to see how we have loved or failed to love. Many will ask why we need even one judgment. Why doesn't Jesus welcome all of us into his kingdom? All are sinners. How can God fairly decide to let some sinners "inherit the kingdom" and send others "away into eternal punishment?" Yet the refusal to accept judgment is linked with the stubborn denial of sin. We have the possibility of sharing in divine life partly because Christ has made that possibility available to us, but also because we are free, self-determining agents of our fate. God has given us freedom to either "delight (in) the law of the Lord" or to "be driven away by the wind" (Psalm 1). The possibility of eternal life contains within it the peril of eternal punishment. All are sinners, yet some, like the good thief, admit that the treachery of their own lives stands in sharp contrast with the unfailing goodness of God. They face the truth and are humbled by it. Others would like to be God, replacing God's laws with their own whims. Such a life is a lie. St. John put it this way: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:8-9). So it was at the crucifixion. The self-righteous ones, blind to the truth, perhaps even willfully blind, mocked Jesus. But one criminal saw the profound goodness of Jesus. Because he admitted his own sin and called on Jesus to remember him, he was welcomed into Jesus' everlasting kingdom.

HEAVEN
Frm Cathecism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#IV HEAVEN 1023 Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they "see him as he is," face to face:598 By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ's holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment - and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into heaven - have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.599 1024 This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called "heaven." Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness. 1025 To live in heaven is "to be with Christ." The elect live "in Christ,"600 but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their own name.601 For life is to be with Christ; where Christ is, there is life, there is the kingdom.602 1026 By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has "opened" heaven to us. The life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ. 1027 This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast,

wine of the kingdom, the Father's house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him."603 1028 Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man's immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. The Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory "the beatific vision": How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God, to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God's friends.604 1029 In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to fulfill God's will in relation to other men and to all creation. Already they reign with Christ; with him "they shall reign for ever and ever.

From CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm Heaven Catholic Encyclopedia on CD-ROM Contains 11,632 articles. Browse off-line, ad-free, printer-friendly. Get it here for only $29.95 This subject will be treated under seven headings:

I. Name and Place of Heaven; II. Existence of Heaven; III. Supernatural Character of Heaven and the Beatific Vision; IV. Eternity of Heaven and Impeccability of the Blessed; V. Essential Beatitude; VI. Accidental Beatitude; VII. Attributes of Beatitude.

I. NAME AND PLACE OF HEAVEN The Name of Heaven Heaven (Anglo-Saxon heofon, O.S. hevan and himil, originally himin) corresponds to the Gothic himin-s. Both heaven and himil are formed from himin by a regular change of consonants: heaven, by changing m before n into v; and himil, by changing n of the unaccented ending into l. Some derive heaven from the root ham, "to cover" (cf. the Gothic ham-n and the German Hem-d). According to this derivation heaven would be conceived as the roof of the world. Others trace a connection between himin (heaven) and home; according to this view, which seems to be the more probable, heaven would be the abode of the Godhead. The Latin coelum (koilon, a vault) is derived by many from the root of celare "to cover, to conceal" (coelum, "ceiling" "roof of the world"). Others, however think it is connected with the Germanic himin. The Greek ouranos is probably derived from the root var, which also connotes the idea of covering. The Hebrew name for heaven is thought to be derived from a word meaning "on high"; accordingly, heaven would designate the upper region of the world. In the Holy Bible the term heaven denotes, in the first place, the blue firmament, or the region of the clouds that pass along the sky. Gen., i, 20, speaks of the birds "under the firmament of heaven". In other passages it denotes the region of the stars that shine in the sky. Furthermore heaven is spoken of as the dwelling of God; for, although God is omnipresent, He manifests Himself in a special manner in the light and grandeur of the firmament. Heaven also is the abode of the angels; for they are constantly with God and see His face. With God in heaven are likewise the souls of the just (II Cor. 5:1; Matt., v, 3, 12). In Eph., iv, 8 sq., we are told that Christ conducted to heaven the patriarchs who had been in limbo (limbus patrum). Thus the term heaven has come to designate both the happiness and the abode of just in the next life. The present article treats as heaven in this sense only. In Holy Scripture it is called: * the kingdom of heaven (Matt., v, 3), * the kingdom of God (Mark, ix, 46), * the kingdom of the Father (Matt., xiii, 43), * the kingdom of Christ (Luke, xxii, 30), * the house of the Father (John, xiv, 2), * city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebr., xii), * the holy place (Hebr., ix, 12; D. V. holies), * paradise (II Cor., xii, 4), * life (Matt., vii, 14), * life everlasting (Matt., xix, 16), * the joy of the Lord (Matthew 25:21),

* crown of life (James, i, 12), * crown of justice (II Timothy iv, 8), * crown of glory (I Peter, v, 4), * incorruptible crown (I Cor., ix, 25), * great reward (Matthew 5:12), * inheritance of Christ (Eph., i, 18), * eternal inheritance (Hebr., ix, 15). The Location of Heaven Where is heaven, the dwelling of God and the blessed? Some are of opinion that heaven is everywhere, as God is everywhere. According to this view the blessed can move about freely in every part of the universe, and still remain with God and see everywhere. Everywhere, too, they remain with Christ (in His sacred Humanity) and with the saints and the angels. For, according to the advocates of this opinion, the spatial distances of this world must no longer impede the mutual intercourse of blessed. In general, however, theologians deem more appropriate that there should be a special and glorious abode, in which the blessed have their peculiar home and where they usually abide, even though they be free to go about in this world. For the surroundings in the midst of which the blessed have their dwelling must be in accordance with their happy state; and the internal union of charity which joins them in affection must find its outward expression in community of habitation. At the end of the world, the earth together with the celestial bodies will be gloriously transformed into a part of the dwelling-place of the blessed (Apoc., xxi). Hence there seems to be no sufficient reason for attributing a metaphorical sense to those numerous utterances of the Bible which suggest a definite dwelling-place of the blessed. Theologians, therefore, generally hold that the heaven of the blessed is a special place with definite limits. Naturally, this place is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the expressions of Scripture, without and beyond its limits. All further details regarding its locality are quite uncertain. The Church has decided nothing on this subject. II. EXISTENCE OF HEAVEN There is a heaven, i.e., God will bestow happiness and the richest gifts on all those who depart this life free from original sin and personal mortal sin, and who are, consequently, in the state of justice and friendship with God. Concerning the purification of those just souls who depart in venial sin or who are still subject to temporal punishment for sin, see PURGATORY. On the lot of those who die free from personal sin, but infected with original sin, see LIMBO (limbus

pervulorum). On the immediate beginning of eternal happiness after death, or eventually, after the passage through purgatory, see PARTICULAR JUDGMENT. The existence of heaven is, of course, denied by atheists, materialists, and pantheists of all centuries as well as by those rationalists who teach that the soul perishes with the body -- in short, by all who deny the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. But, for the rest, if we abstract from the specific quality and the supernatural character of heaven, the doctrine has never met with any opposition worthy of note. Even mere reason can prove the existence of heaven or of the happy state of the just in the next life. We shall give a brief outline of the principal arguments. From these we shall, at the same time, see that the bliss of heaven is eternal and consists primarily in the possession of God, and that heaven presupposes a condition of perfect happiness, in which every wish of the heart finds adequate satisfaction. * God made all things for His objective honour and glory. Every creature was to manifest His Divine perfections by becoming a likeness of God, each according to its capacity. But man is capable of becoming in the greatest and most perfect manner a likeness of God, when he knows and loves His infinite perfections with a knowledge and love analogous to God's own love and knowledge. Therefore man is created to know God and to love Him. Moreover, this knowledge and love is to be eternal; for such is man's capability and his calling, because his soul is immortal. Lastly, to know God and to love Him is the noblest occupation of the human mind, and consequently also its supreme happiness. Therefore man is created for eternal happiness; and he will infallibly attain it hereafter, unless, by sin, he renders himself unworthy of so high a destiny. * God made all things for His formal glory, which consists in the knowledge and love shown Him by rational creatures. Irrational creatures cannot give formal glory to God directly, but they should assist rational creatures in doing so. This they can do by manifesting God's perfections and by rendering other services; whilst rational creatures should, by their own personal knowledge and love of God, refer and direct all creatures to Him as their last end. Therefore every intelligent creature in general, and man in particular, is destined to know and love God for ever, though he may forfeit eternal happiness by sin. * God, in his infinite justice and holiness, must give virtue its due reward. But, as experience teaches, the virtuous do not obtain a sufficient reward here; hence they will be recompensed hereafter, and the reward must be everlasting, since the soul is immortal. Nor can it be supposed that the soul in the next life must merit her continuance in happiness by a continued series of combats; for this would be repugnant to all the tendencies and desires of human nature. * God, in His wisdom, must set on the moral law a sanction, sufficiently appropriate and efficacious. But, unless each man is rewarded according to the measure of his good works, such a sanction could not be said to exist. Mere infliction of punishment for sin would be insufficient. In any case, reward for good deeds is the best means of inspiring zeal for virtue. Nature itself teaches us to reward virtue in others whenever we can, and to hope for a reward of our own good actions from the Supreme Ruler of the universe. That reward, not being given here, will be given hereafter.

* God has implanted in the heart of man a love of virtue and a love of happiness; consequently, God, because of His wisdom, must by rewarding virtue establish perfect harmony between these two tendencies. But such a harmony is not established in this life; therefore it will be brought about in the next. * Every man has an innate desire for perfect beatitude. Experience proves this. The sight of the imperfect goods of earth naturally leads us to form the conception of a happiness so perfect as to satisfy all the desires of our heart. But we cannot conceive such a state without desiring it. Therefore we are destined for a happiness that is perfect and, for that very reason, eternal; and it will be ours, unless we forfeit it by sin. A natural tendency without an object is incompatible both with nature and with the Creator's goodness. The arguments thus far advanced prove the existence of heaven as a state of perfect happiness. * We are born for higher things, for the possession of God. This earth can satisfy no man, least of all the wise. "Vanity of vanities", says the Scripture (Eccles., i, 1); and St. Augustine exclaimed: "Thou hast made us for Thyself (O God) and our heart is troubled till it rests in Thee." * We are created for wisdom, for a possession of truth perfect in its kind. Our mental faculties and the aspirations of our nature give proof of this. But the scanty knowledge, that we can acquire on earth stands in no proportion to the capabilities of our soul. We shall possess truth in higher perfection hereafter. * God made us for holiness, for a complete and final triumph over passion and for the perfect and secure possession of virtue. Our natural aptitudes and desires bear witness to this. But this happy goal is not reached on earth, but in the next life. * We are created for love and friendship, for indissoluble union with our friends. At the grave of those we love our heart longs for a future reunion. This cry of nature is no delusion. A joyful and everlasting reunion awaits the just man beyond the grave. * It is the conviction of all peoples that there is a heaven in which the just will rejoice in the next life. But, in the fundamental questions of our being and our destiny, a conviction, so unanimous and universal, cannot be erroneous. Otherwise this world and the order of this world would remain an utter enigma to intelligent creatures, who ought to know at least the necessary means for reaching their appointed end. * Very few deny the existence of heaven; and these few are practically all atheists and epicureans. But surely it cannot be that all the rest have erred, and an isolated class of men such as these are not the true guides in the most fundamental questions of our being. For apostasy from God and His law cannot be the key to wisdom. Revelation also proclaims the existence of heaven. This we have already seen in the preceding section from the many names by which the Bible designates heaven; and from the texts of Scripture, still to be quoted on the nature and peculiar conditions of heaven. III. SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER OF HEAVEN AND THE BEATIFIC VISION

(1) In heaven the just will see God by direct intuition, clearly and distinctly. Here on earth we have no immediate perception of God; we see Him but indirectly in the mirror of creation. We get our first and direct knowledge from creatures, and then, by reasoning from these, we ascend to a knowledge of God according to the imperfect likeness which creatures bear to their Creator. But in doing so we proceed to a large extent by way of negation, i.e., by removing from the Divine Being the imperfections proper to creatures. In heaven, however, no creature will stand between God and the soul. He himself will be the immediate object of its vision. Scripture and theology tell us that the blessed see God face to face. And because this vision is immediate and direct, it is also exceedingly clear and distinct. Ontologists assert that we perceive God directly in this life, though our knowledge of Him is vague and obscure; but a vision of the Divine Essence, immediate yet vague and obscure, implies a contradiction. The blessed see God, not merely according to the measure of His likeness imperfectly reflected in creation, but they see Him as He is, after the manner of His own Being. That the blessed see God is a dogma of faith, expressly defined by Benedict XII (1336): We define that the souls of all the saints in heaven have seen and do see the Divine Essence by direct intuition and face to face [visione intuitiv et etiam faciali], in such wise that nothing created intervenes as an object of vision, but the Divine Essence presents itself to their immediate gaze, unveiled, clearly and openly; moreover, that in this vision they enjoy the Divine Essence, and that, in virtue of this vision and this enjoyment, they are truly blessed and possess eternal life and eternal rest" (Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. 10, n. 530--old edition, n, 456; cf. nn. 693, 1084, 1458 old, nn. 588, 868). The Scriptural argument is based especially on I Cor., xiii, 8-13 (cf. Matt., xviii, 10; I John, iii, 2; II Cor., v, 6-8, etc.). The argument from tradition is carried out in detail by Petavius ("De. theol. dogm.", I, i, VII, c. 7). Several Fathers, who seemingly contradict this doctrine, in reality maintain it; they merely teach that the bodily eye cannot see God, or that the blessed do not fully comprehend God, or that the soul cannot see God with its natural powers in this life (cf. Surez, "De Deo", l. II, c. 7, n. 17). (2) It is of faith that the beatific vision is supernatural, that it transcends the powers and claims of created nature, of angels as well as of men. The opposite doctrine of the Beghards and Beguines was condemned (1311) by the Council of Vienne (Denz., n. 475 -- old, n. 403), and likewise a similar error of Baius by Pius V (Denz., n. 1003 -- old, n. 883). The Vatican Council expressly declared that man has been elevated by God to a supernatural end (Denz., n. 1786 -- old, n. 1635; cf. nn. 1808, 1671 -- old, nn. 1655, 1527). In this connection we must also mention the condemnation of the Ontologists, and in particular of Rosmini, who held that an immediate but indeterminate perception of God is essential to the human intellect and the beginning of all human knowledge (Denz., nn. 1659, 1927 -- old, nn. 1516, 1772). That the vision of God is supernatural can also be shown from the supernatural character of sanctifying grace (Denz., n. 1021 -- old, n. 901); for, if the preparation for that vision is supernatural. Even unaided reason recognizes that the immediate vision of God, even if it be at all possible, can never be natural for a creature. For it is manifest that every created mind first perceives its own self and creatures

similar to itself by which it is surrounded, and from these it rises to a knowledge of God as the source of their being and their last end. Hence its natural knowledge of God is necessarily mediate and analogous; since it forms its ideas and judgments about God after the imperfect likeness which its own self and its surroundings bear to Him. Such is the only means nature offers for acquiring a knowledge of God, and more than this is not due to any created intellect; consequently, the second and essentially higher way of seeing God by intuitive vision can but be a gratuitous gift of Divine goodness. These considerations prove, not merely that the immediate vision of God exceeds the natural claims of all creatures in actual existence; but they also prove against Ripalda, Becaenus, and others (Recently also Morlias), that God cannot create any spirit which would, by virtue of its nature, be entitled to the intuitive vision of the Divine Essence. Therefore, as theologians express it, no created substance is of its nature supernatural; however, the Church has given no decision on this matter. Cf. Palmieri, "De Deo creante et elevante" (Rome, 1878), thes. 39; Morlais, "Le Surnaturel absolu", in "Revue du Clerg Franais", XXXI (1902), 464 sqq., and, for the opposite view, Bellamy, "La question du Surnaturel absolu", ibid., XXXV (1903), 419 sqq. St. Thomas seems to teach (I, Q. xii, a. 1) that man has a natural desire for the beatific vision. Elsewhere, however, he frequently insists on the supernatural character of that vision (e.g. III, Q. ix, a. 2, ad 3um). Hence in the former place he obviously supposes that man knows from revelation both the possibility of the beatific vision and his destiny to enjoy it. On this supposition it is indeed quite natural for man to have so strong a desire for that vision, that any inferior kind of beatitude can no longer duly satisfy him. (3) To enable it to see God, the intellect of the blessed is supernaturally perfected by the light of glory (lumen gloriae). This was defined by the Council of Vienne in 1311 (Denz., n. 475; old, n. 403); and it is also evident from the supernatural character of the beatific vision. For the beatific vision transcends the natural powers of the intellect; therefore, to see God the intellect stands in need of some supernatural strength, not merely transient, but permanent as the vision itself. This permanent invigoration is called the "light of glory", because it enables the souls in glory to see God with their intellect, just as material light enables our bodily eyes to see corporeal objects. On the nature of the light of glory the Church has decided nothing. Theologians have elaborated various theories about it, which, however, need not be examined in detail. According to the view commonly and perhaps most reasonably held, the light of glory is a quality Divinely infused into the soul and similar to sanctifying grace, the virtue of faith, and the other supernatural virtues in the souls of the just (cf. Franzelin, "De Deo uno", 3rd ed., Rome, 1883, thes. 16). It is controverted among theologians whether or not a mental image, be it a species expressa or a species impressa, is required for the beatific vision. But by many this is regarded as largely a controversy about the appropriateness of the term, rather than about the matter itself. The more common and probably more correct view denies the presence of any image in the strict sense of the word, because no created image can represent God as He is (cf. Mazzella, "De Deo creante", 3rd ed., Rome, 1892, disp. IV, a. 7, sec. 1). The beatific vision is obviously a created act inherent in the soul, and not, as a few of the older theologians thought, the uncreated act of God's own intellect communicated to the soul. For, "as seeing and knowing are immanent vital actions, the soul can see or know God by its own activity only, and not through any activity exerted by some other intellect. Cf. Gutherlet, "Das lumen gloriae" in "Pastor bonus", XIV (1901), 297 sqq.

(4) Theologians distinguish the primary and the secondary object of the beatific vision. The primary object is God Himself as He is. The blessed see the Divine Essence by direct intuition, and, because of the absolute simplicity of God, they necessarily see all His perfections and all the persons of the Trinity. Moreover, since they see that God can create countless imitations of His Essence, the entire domain of possible creatures lies open to their view, though indeterminately and in general. For the actual decrees of God are not necessarily an object of that vision, except in as afar as God pleases to manifest them. Therefore finite things are not necessarily seen by the blessed, even if they are an actual object of God's will. Still less are they a necessary object of vision as long as they are mere possible objects of the Divine will. Consequently the blessed have a distinct knowledge of individual possible things only in so far as God wishes to grant this knowledge. Thus, if God so willed, a blessed soul might see the Divine Essence without seeing in it the possibility of any individual creature in particular. But in fact, there is always connected with the beatific vision a knowledge of various things external to God, of the possible as well as of the actual. All these things, taken collectively, constitute the secondary object of the beatific vision. The blessed soul sees these secondary objects in God either directly (formaliter), or in as far as God is their cause (causaliter). It sees in God directly whatever the beatific vision discloses to its immediate gaze without the aid of any created mental image (species impressa). In God, as in their cause, the soul sees all those things which it perceives with the aid of a created mental image, a mode of perception granted by God as a natural complement of the beatific vision. The number of objects seen directly in God cannot be increased unless the beatific vision itself be intensified; but the number of things seen in God as their cause may be greater of smaller, or it may very without any corresponding change in the vision itself. The secondary object of the beatific vision comprises everything the blessed may have a reasonable interest in knowing. It includes, in the first place, all the mysteries which the soul believed while on earth. Moreover, the blessed see each other and rejoice in the company of those whom death separated from them. The veneration paid them on earth and the prayers addressed to them are also known to the blessed. All that we have said on the secondary object of the beatific vision is the common and reliable teaching of theologians. In recent times (Holy Office, 14 Dec., 1887) Rosmini was condemned because he taught that the blessed do not see God Himself, but only His relations to creatures (Denz., 1928-1930 -- old, 1773-75). In the earlier ages we find Gregory the Great ("Moral.", l. XVIII, c. liv, n. 90, in P.L., LXXVI, XCIII) combating the error of a few who maintained that the blessed to not see God, but only a brilliant light streaming forth from Him. Also in the Middle Ages there are traces of this error (cf. Franzelin, "De Deo uno", 2nd ed., thes. 15, p. 192). (5) Although the blessed see God, they do not comprehend Him, because God is absolutely incomprehensible to every created intellect, and He cannot grant to any creature the power of comprehending Him as He comprehends Himself. Surez rightly calls this a revealed truth ("De Deo", l. II, c. v, n. 6); for the Fourth Council of the Lateran and the Vatican Council enumerated incomprehensibility among the absolute attributes of God (Denz., nn. 428, 1782 -- old nn. 355,

1631). The Fathers defend this truth against Eunomius, an Arian, who asserted that we comprehend God fully even in this life. The blessed comprehend God neither intensively nor extensively -- not intensively, because their vision has not that infinite clearness with which God is knowable and with which He knows Himself, nor extensively, because their vision does not actually and clearly extend to everything that God sees in His Essence. For they cannot by a single act of their intellect represent every possible creature individually, clearly, and distinctly, as God does; such an act would be infinite, and an infinite act is incompatible with the nature of a created and finite intellect. The blessed see the Godhead in its entirety, but only with a limited clearness of vision (Deum totum sed non totaliter). They see the Godhead in its entirety, because they see all the perfections of God and all the Persons of the Trinity; and yet their vision is limited, because it has neither the infinite clearness that corresponds to the Divine perfections, nor does it extend to everything that actually is, or may still become, an object of God's free decrees. Hence it follows that one blessed soul may see God more perfectly than another, and that the beatific vision admits of various degrees. (6) The beatific vision is a mystery. Of course reason cannot prove the impossibility of such a vision. For why should God, in His omnipotence, be unable to draw so near and adapt Himself so fully to our intellect, that the soul may, as it were, directly feel Him and lay hold of Him and look on Him and become entirely immersed in Him? On the other hand, we cannot prove absolutely that this is possible; for the beatific vision lies beyond the natural destiny of our intellect, and it is so extraordinary a mode of perception that we cannot clearly understand either the fact or the manner of its possibility. (7) From what has been thus far said it is clear that there is a twofold beatitude: the natural and the supernatural. As we have seen, man is by nature entitled to beatitude, provided he does not forfeit it by his own fault. We have also seen that beatitude is eternal and that it consists in the possession of God, for creatures cannot truly satisfy man. Again, as we have shown, the soul is to possess God by knowledge and love. But the knowledge to which man is entitled by nature is not an immediate vision, but an analogous perception of God in the mirror of creation, still a very perfect knowledge which really satisfies the heart. Hence the beatitude to which alone we have a natural claim consists in that perfect analogous knowledge and in the love corresponding to that knowledge. This natural beatitude is the lowest kind of felicity which God, in His goodness and wisdom, can grant to sinless man. But, instead of an analogous knowledge of His Essence He may grant to the blessed a direct intuition which includes all the excellence of natural beatitude and surpasses it beyond measure. It is this higher kind of beatitude that it has pleased God to grant us. And by granting it He not merely satisfies our natural desire for happiness but He satisfies it in superabundance. IV. ETERNITY OF HEAVEN AND IMPECCABILITY OF THE BLESSED It is a dogma of faith that the happiness of the blessed is everlasting. This truth is clearly contained in the Holy Bible (see Section I); it is daily professed by the Church in the Apostles'

Creed (credo . . . vitam aeternam), and it has been repeatedly defined by the Church, especially by Benedict XII (cf. Section III). Even reason, as we have seen, can demonstrate it. And surely, if the blessed knew that their happiness was ever to come to an end, this knowledge alone would prevent their happiness from being perfect. In this matter Origen fell into error; for in several passages of his works he seems to incline to the opinion that rational creatures never reach a permanent final state (status termini), but that they remain forever capable of falling away from God and losing their beatitude and of always returning to Him again. The blessed are confirmed in good; they can no longer commit even the slightest venial sin; every wish of their heart is inspired by the purest love of God. That is, beyond doubt, Catholic doctrine. Moreover this impossibility of sinning is physical. The blessed have no longer the power of choosing to do evil actions; they cannot but love God; they are merely free to show that love by one good action in preference to another. But whilst the impeccability of the blessed appears to be unanimously held by theologians, there is a diversity of opinion as to its cause. According to some, its proximate cause consists in this that God absolutely withholds from the blessed His co-operation to any sinful consent. The beatific Vision does not, they argue, of its very nature exclude sin directly and absolutely; because God may still displease the blessed soul in various ways, e.g., by refusing a higher degree to beatitude, or by letting persons whom that soul loves die in sin and sentencing them to eternal torment. Moreover, when great sufferings and arduous duties accompany the beatific vision, as was the case in the human nature of Christ on earth, then at least the possibility of sin is not directly and absolutely excluded. The ultimate cause of impeccability is the freedom from sin or the state of grace in which at his death man passes into the final state (status termini), i.e. into a state of unchangeable attitude of mind and will. For it is quite in consonance with the nature of that state that God should offer only such co-operation as corresponds to the mental attitude man chose for himself on earth. For this reason also the souls in purgatory, although they do not see God, are still utterly incapable of sin. The beatific vision itself may be called a remote cause of impeccability; for by granting so wondrous a token of His love, God may be said to undertake the obligation of guarding from all sin those whom He so highly favours, whether by refusing all co-operation to evil acts or in some other manner. Besides, even if the clear vision of God, most worthy of their love, does not render the blessed physically unable, it certainly renders them less liable, to sin. Impeccability, as explained by the representatives of this opinion, is not, properly speaking, extrinsic, as is often wrongly asserted; but it is rather intrinsic, because it is strictly due to the final state of blessedness and especially to the beatific vision. This is substantially the opinion of the Scotists, likewise of many others, especially in recent times. Nevertheless the Thomists, and with them the greater number of theologians, maintain that the beatific vision of its very nature directly excludes the possibility of sin. For no creature can have a clear intuitive view of the Supreme Good without being by that very fact alone irresistibly drawn to love it efficaciously and to fulfil for its sake even the most arduous duties without the least repugnance. The Church has left this matter undecided. The present writer rather inclines to the opinion of the Scotists because of its bearing on the question of the liberty of Christ. (See HELL under the heading Impenitence of the Damned.) V. ESSENTIAL BEATITUDE We distinguish objective and subjective beatitude. Objective beatitude is that good, the

possession of which makes us happy; subjective beatitude is the possession of that good. The essence of objective beatitude, or the essential object of beatitude is God alone. For the possession of God assures us also the possession of every other good we may desire; moreover, everything else is so immeasurably inferior to God that its possession can only be looked upon as something accidental to beatitude. Finally, that all else is of minor importance for beatitude is evident from the fact that nothing save God alone is capable of satisfying man. Accordingly the essence of subjective beatitude is the possession of God, and it consists in the acts of vision, love, and joy. The blessed love God with a twofold love; with the love of complacency, by which they love God for His own sake, and secondly with the love less properly so called, by which they love Him as the source of their happiness (amor concupiscentiae). In consonance with this twofold love the blessed have a twofold joy; firstly, the joy of love in the strict sense of the word, by which they rejoice over the infinite beatitude which they see in God Himself, precisely because it is the happiness of God whom they love, and secondly, the joy springing from love in a wider sense, by which they rejoice in God because He is the source of their own supreme happiness. These five acts constitute the essence of (subjective) beatitude, or in more precise terms, its physical essence. In this theologians agree. Here theologians go a step farther and inquire whether among those five acts of the blessed there is one act, or a combination of several acts, which constitutes the essence of beatitude in a stricter sense, i.e. its metaphysical essence in contradistinction to its physical essence. In general their answer is affirmative; but in assigning the metaphysical essence their opinions diverge. The present writer prefers the opinion of St. Thomas, who holds that the metaphysical essence consists in the vision alone. For, as we have just seen, the acts of love and joy are merely a kind of secondary attributes of the vision; and this remains true, whether love and joy result directly from the vision, as the Thomists hold, or whether the beatific vision by its very nature calls for confirmation in love and God's efficacious protection against sin. VI. ACCIDENTAL BEATITUDE Besides the essential object of beatitude the souls in heaven enjoy many blessings accidental to beatitude. We shall mention only a few: * In heaven there is not the least pain or sadness; for every aspiration of nature must be finally realized. The will of the blessed is in perfect harmony with the Divine will; they feel displeasure at the sins of men, but without experiencing any real pain. * They delight greatly in the company of Christ, the angels, and the saints, and in the reunion with so many who were dear to them on earth. * After the resurrection the union of the soul with the glorified body will be a special source of joy for the blessed. * They derive great pleasure from the contemplation of all those things, both created and possible, which, as we have shown, they see in God, at least indirectly as in the cause. And, in

particular, after the last judgment the new heaven and the new earth will afford them manifold enjoyment. (See GENERAL JUDGMENT.) * The blessed rejoice over sanctifying grace and the supernatural virtues that adorn their soul; and any sacramental character they may have also adds to their bliss. * Very special joys are granted to the martyrs, doctors, and virgins, a special proof of victories won in time of trial (Apoc., vii, 11 sq.; Dan., xii, 3; Apoc., xiv, 3 sq.). Hence theologians speak of three particular crowns, aureolas, or glorioles, by which these three classes of blessed souls are accidentally honoured beyond the rest. Aureola is a diminutive of aurea, i.e. aurea corona (golden crown). (Cf. St. Thomas, Supp:96.) Since eternal happiness is metaphorically called a marriage of the soul with Christ, theologians also speak of the bridal endowments of the blessed. They distinguish seven of these gifts, four of which belong to the glorified body -- light, impassibility, agility, subtility (see RESURRECTION); and three to the soul -- vision, possession, enjoyment (visio, comprehensio, fruitio). Yet in the explanation given by the theologians of the three gifts of the soul we find but little conformity. We may identify the gift of vision with the habit of the light of glory, the gift of possession with the habit of that love in a wider sense which has found in God the fulfilment of its desires, and the gift of enjoyment we may identify with the habit of love properly so called (halitus caritatis) which rejoices to be with God; in this view these three infused habits would he considered simply as ornaments to beautify the soul. (Cf. St. Thomas, Supp:95) VII. ATTRIBUTES OF BEATITUDE There are various degrees of beatitude in heaven corresponding to the various degrees of merit. This is a dogma of faith, defined by the Council of Florence (Denz., n. 693 -- old, n. 588). The Bible teaches this truth in very many passages (e.g., wherever it speaks of eternal happiness as a reward), and the Fathers defend it against the heretical attacks of Jovinian. It is true that, according to Matt., xx, 1-16, each labourer receives a penny; but by this comparison Christ merely teaches that, although the Gospel was preached to the Jews first, yet in the Kingdom of Heaven there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, and that no one will receive a greater reward merely because of being a son of Judah. The various degrees of beatitude are not limited to the accidental blessings, but they are found first and foremost in the beatific vision itself. For, as we have already pointed out, the vision, too, admits of degrees. These essential degrees of beatitude are, as Surez rightly observes ("De beat.", d. xi, s. 3, n. 5), that threefold fruit Christ distinguishes when He says that the word of God bears fruit in some thirty, in some sixty, in some a hundredfold (Matt., xiii, 23). And it is by a mere accommodation of the text that St. Thomas (Supp:96, aa. 2 sqq.) and other theologians apply this text to the different degrees in the accidental beatitude merited by married persons, widows, and virgins. The happiness of heaven is essentially unchangeable; still it admits of some accidental changes. Thus we may suppose that the blessed experience special joy when they receive greater veneration from men on earth. In particular, a certain growth in knowledge by experience is not

excluded; for instance, as time goes on, new free actions of men may become known to the blessed, or personal observation and experience may throw a new light on things already known. And after the last judgment accidental beatitude will receive some increase from the union of soul and body, and from the sight of the new heaven and the earth.

http://www.wcr.ab.ca/catechism/cat47.shtml A New Heaven and a New Earth By GLEN ARGAN WCR Editor Read: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1023-1029 and 1042-1060 "Pie in the sky when you die." That was the taunt often hurled at Christians by Marxists and other atheists. The Christians, it was implied, only cared about the good life that would ensue after death and turned a blind eye to all suffering, even quite preventable suffering, on this side of the grave. In one sense, this gibe was quite unfair. It was religious orders, for example, who looked after the poor and the sick and who educated the young long before worldly rulers saw it as their responsibility to attend to such matters. But, in another sense, the gibe hit close to the mark. Traditional Catholic teaching about heaven pictured a pristine existence disconnected from life in this world. It took the Second Vatican Council to address this shortcoming. The council elaborated on the church's teaching in a way which portrayed humanity as cooperating with God in defining the shape of heaven. The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes much of the 14th century definition of heaven by Pope Benedict XII. This pope's declaration Benedictus Deus makes up the bulk of traditional authoritative teaching on heaven. Basically, it states that, in heaven, the elect "see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature" (no. 1023). In short, in heaven we get a vision of God. We know God directly, rather than via his creation. For those who have never shown any interest in God, such a definition is unlikely to inspire them to reorient their lives. It seems to suggest that, in heaven, we are passive. For all eternity, this

might seem a trifle boring. Contemplatives could feel right at home in a heaven where all we do is "see" God. The rest of us might be highly tempted to get out and stretch our legs while we wait for something to happen. Pope Benedict's way of phrasing this owes more to the philosophy of Plato than to Scripture. Our goal might better be described as being with God than as passively "seeing" him. In heaven, we will find the fulfilment of St. Augustine's famous cry that "our heart is restless until it rests in you." All our lives we have yearned and striven for something more than one can find in this world. In heaven, we will finally discover that "something more." The catechism refers to several Scriptural images of heaven. It is a wedding feast, the Father's house, the heavenly Jerusalem. Through these images we can understand that heaven involves a rich and intimate interpersonal sharing between God and us as well as between ourselves and other people. We sit at God's table and talk, share and celebrate with him. Heaven is a party, a home, a city. There is a buzz as well as mystical communion. Vatican II, in a highly significant paragraph of The Church in the Modern World (no. 39, see Catechism, 1048-1050), took this further. "The expectation of a new earth must not weaken but rather stimulate our concern for cultivating this one. For here grows the body of a new human family, a body which even now is able to give some kind of foreshadowing of the new age." The current life is not just a testing ground to determine who wins admission to heaven. Our actions are not mere means to passing the test and getting our heavenly reward. Rather, in this life, we begin to form the next one. The steps we take now will show discernible effects in the new human family in heaven. Each of us has hopes and dreams which are not merely self-serving. We all yearn for the eternal, that which is beyond our grasp now, that which is more than words can say. And yet that yearning is expressed in quite different ways. Some express it by working with the Third World poor, others by lives of prayer, others by knitting sweaters for their grandchildren. What is essential is that each of us not allow that yearning to be dulled by addiction to TV, alcohol or other diversions. We need to be moved by that inner call and discipline ourselves so that it gives wing to our lives. At the end of time, God will call together those who have been faithful to their unique personal vocations and form them into this new human family. Then we will see how the actions of each have contributed to the making of the whole.

Exactly how God will use our actions to give shape to heaven, we don't know. But Vatican II said in general what will occur: "After we have obeyed the Lord, and in his Spirit nurtured on earth the values of human dignity, brotherhood and freedom, and indeed all the good fruits of our nature and enterprise, we will find them again, but freed of stain, burnished and transfigured." Heaven is a reward, but it is more than that. It is the fruit of our own labors in this world. It is something we have a responsibility to build. Now! The human search for heaven is not an escape from the joys and hopes, griefs and anxieties of this world. It is how we enter more fully into the human drama.

HELL AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT


The Bible clearly teaches the endless punishment of the wicked: Matthew 25:41, 46 "Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels .... Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." See also: Matthew 18:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; Revelation 14:10, 11; 20:10, 15. Mateo 10:28: Temed al que puede arrojar alma y cuerpo en el infierno

From Cathecism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#IV HELL 1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell." 1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. 1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell

are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "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. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."618 Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."619 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":621 Father, accept this offering from your whole family. Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen

From Catholic Encyclopedia: Hell

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

Catholic Encyclopedia on CD-ROM Contains 11,632 articles. Browse off-line, ad-free, printer-friendly. Get it here for only $29.95 This subject is treated under eight headings: (I) Name and Place of Hell; (II) Existence of Hell; (III) Eternity of Hell; (IV) Impenitence of the Damned; (V) Poena Damni; (VI) Poena Sensus; (VII) Accidental Pains of the Damned; (VIII) Characteristics of the Pains of Hell.

I. NAME AND PLACE OF HELL The term hell is cognate to "hole" (cavern) and "hollow". It is a substantive formed from the Anglo-Saxon helan or behelian, "to hide". This verb has the same primitive as the Latin occulere and celare and the Greek kalyptein. Thus by derivation hell denotes a dark and hidden place. In ancient Norse mythology Hel is the ill-favoured goddess of the underworld. Only those who fall in battle can enter Valhalla; the rest go down to Hel in the underworld, not all, however, to the place of punishment of criminals. Hell (infernus) in theological usage is a place of punishment after death. Theologians distinguish four meanings of the term hell: * hell in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the damned, be they demons or men; * the limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment; * the limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum), in which the souls of the just who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam; * purgatory, where the just, who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to heaven. The present article treats only of hell in the strict sense of the term. The Latin infernus (inferum, inferi), the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew sheol correspond to the word hell. Infernus is derived from the root in; hence it designates hell as a place within and below the earth. Haides, formed from the root fid, to see, and a privative, denotes an invisible, hidden, and dark place; thus it is similar to the term hell. The derivation of sheol is doubtful. It is generally supposed to come from the Hebrew root meaning, "to be sunk in, to be hollow"; accordingly it denotes a cave or a place under the earth. In the Old Testament (Sept. hades; Vulg. infernus) sheol is used quite in general to designate the kingdom of the dead, of the good (Gen., xxxvii, 35) as well as of the bad (Num., xvi, 30); it means hell in the strict sense of the term, as well as the limbo of the Fathers. But, as the limbo of the Fathers ended at the time of Christ's Ascension, hades (Vulg. infernus) in the New Testament always designates the hell of the damned. Since Christ's Ascension the just no longer go down to the lower world, but they dwell in heaven (II Cor., v 1). However, in the New Testament the term Gehenna is used more frequently in preference to hades, as a name for the place of punishment of the damned. Gehenna is the Hebrew g-hinnom (Neh., xi, 30), or the longer form g-ben-hinnom (Jos., xv, 8), and g-ben-hinnom (IV Kings, xxiii, 10) "valley of the sons of Hinnom". Hinnom seems to be the name of a person not otherwise known. The Valley of Hinnom is south of Jerusalem and is now called Wadi er-rababi. It was notorious as the scene, in earlier days, of the horrible worship of Moloch. For this reason it was defiled by Josias (IV Kings, xxiii, 10), cursed by Jeremias (Jer.,

vii, 31-33), and held in abomination by the Jews, who, accordingly, used the name of this valley to designate the abode of the damned (Targ. Jon., Gen., iii, 24; Henoch, c. xxvi). And Christ adopted this usage of the term. Besides Hades and Gehenna, we find in the New Testament many other names for the abode of the damned. It is called "lower hell" (Vulg. tartarus) (II Peter, ii, 4), "abyss" (Luke, viii, 31 and elsewhere), "place of torments" (Luke, xvi, 28), "pool of fire" (Apoc., xix, 20 and elsewhere), "furnace of fire" (Matt., xiii, 42, 50), "unquenchable fire" (Matt., iii, 12, and elsewhere), "everlasting fire" (Matt., xviii, 8; xxv, 41; Jude, 7), "exterior darkness" (Matt., vii, 12; xxii, 13; xxv, 30), "mist" or "storm of darkness" (II Peter, ii, 17; Jude, 13). The state of the damned is called "destruction" (apoleia, Phil., iii, 19, and elsewhere), "perdition" (olethros, I Tim., vi, 9), "eternal destruction" (olethros aionios, II Thess., i, 9), "corruption" (phthora, Gal., vi, 8), "death" (Rom., vi, 21), "second death" (Apoc., ii, 11 and elsewhere). Where is hell? Some were of opinion that hell is everywhere, that the damned are at liberty to roam about in the entire universe, but that they carry their punishment with them. The adherents of this doctrine were called Ubiquists, or Ubiquitarians; among them were, e.g., Johann Brenz, a Swabian, a Protestant theologian of the sixteenth century. However, that opinion is universally and deservedly rejected; for it is more in keeping with their state of punishment that the damned be limited in their movements and confined to a definite place. Moreover, if hell is a real fire, it cannot be everywhere, especially after the consummation of the world, when heaven and earth shall have been made anew. As to its locality all kinds of conjectures have been made; it has been suggested that hell is situated on some far island of the sea, or at the two poles of the earth; Swinden, an Englishman of the eighteenth century, fancied it was in the sun; some assigned it to the moon, others to Mars; others placed it beyond the confines of the universe [Wiest, "Instit. theol.", VI (1789), 869]. The Bible seems to indicate that hell is within the earth, for it describes hell as an abyss to which the wicked descend. We even read of the earth opening and of the wicked sinking down into hell (Num., xvi, 31 sqq.; Ps., liv, 16; Is., v, 14; Ez., xxvi, 20; Phil., ii, 10, etc.). Is this merely a metaphor to illustrate the state of separation from God? Although God is omnipresent, He is said to dwell in heaven, because the light and grandeur of the stars and the firmament are the brightest manifestations of His infinite splendour. But the damned are utterly estranged from God; hence their abode is said to be as remote as possible from his dwelling, far from heaven above and its light, and consequently hidden away in the dark abysses of the earth. However, no cogent reason has been advanced for accepting a metaphorical interpretation in preference to the most natural meaning of the words of Scripture. Hence theologians generally accept the opinion that hell is really within the earth. The Church has decided nothing on this subject; hence we may say hell is a definite place; but where it is, we do not know. St. Chrysostom reminds us: "We must not ask where hell is, but how we are to escape it" (In Rom., hom. xxxi, n. 5, in P.G., LX, 674). St. Augustine says: "It is my opinion that the nature of hell-fire and the location of hell are known to no man unless the Holy Ghost made it known to him by a special revelation", (De Civ. Dei, XX, xvi, in P.L., XLI, 682). Elsewhere he expresses the opinion that hell is under the earth (Retract., II, xxiv, n. 2 in P.L., XXXII, 640). St. Gregory the Great wrote: "I do not dare to decide this question. Some thought hell is somewhere on earth; others believe it is under the earth" (Dial., IV, xlii, in P.L., LXXVII, 400; cf. Patuzzi, "De sede inferni", 1763; Gretser, "De subterraneis animarum receptaculis", 1595).

II. EXISTENCE OF HELL There is a hell, i.e. all those who die in personal mortal sin, as enemies of God, and unworthy of eternal life, will be severely punished by God after death. On the nature of mortal sin, see SIN; on the immediate beginning of punishment after death, see PARTICULAR JUDGMENT. As to the fate of those who die free from personal mortal sin, but in original sin, see LIMBO (limbus parvulorum). The existence of hell is, of course, denied by all those who deny the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. Thus among the Jew the Sadducees, among the Gnostics, the Seleucians, and in our own time Materialists, Pantheists, etc., deny the existence of hell. But apart from these, if we abstract from the eternity of the pains of hell, the doctrine has never met any opposition worthy of mention. The existence of hell is proved first of all from the Bible. Wherever Christ and the Apostles speak of hell they presuppose the knowledge of its existence (Matt., v, 29; viii, 12; x, 28; xiii, 42; xxv, 41, 46; II Thess., i, 8; Apoc., xxi, 8, etc.). A very complete development of the Scriptural argument, especially in regard to the Old Testament, may be found in Atzberger's "Die christliche Eschatologie in den Stadien ihrer Offenbarung im Alten und Neuen Testament", Freiburg, 1890. Also the Fathers, from the very earliest times, are unanimous in teaching that the wicked will be punished after death. And in proof of their doctrine they appeal both to Scripture and to reason (cf. Ignatius, "Ad Eph.", v, 16; "Martyrium s. Polycarpi", ii, n, 3; xi, n.2; Justin, "Apol.", II, n. 8 in P.G., VI, 458; Athenagoras, "De resurr. mort.", c. xix, in P.G., VI, 1011; Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", V, xxvii, n. 2 in P.G. VII, 1196; Tertullian, "Adv. Marc.", I, c. xxvi, in P.L., IV, 277). For citations from this patristic teaching see Atzberger, "Gesh. der christl. Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicanischen Zeit" (Freiburg, 1896); Petavius, "De Angelis", III, iv sqq. The Church professes her faith in the Athanasian Creed: "They that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire" (Denzinger, "Enchiridion", 10th ed., 1908, n.40). The Church has repeatedly defined this truth, e.g. in the profession of faith made in the Second Council of Lyons (Denx., n. 464) and in the Decree of Union in the Council of Florence (Denz., N. 693): "the souls of those who depart in mortal sin, or only in original sin, go down immediately into hell, to be visited, however, with unequal punishments" (poenis disparibus). If we abstract from the eternity of its punishment, the existence of hell can be demonstrated even by the light of mere reason. In His sanctity and justice as well as in His wisdom, God must avenge the violation of the moral order in such wise as to preserve, at least in general, some proportion between the gravity of sin and the severity of punishment. But it is evident from experience that God does not always do this on earth; therefore He will inflict punishment after death. Moreover, if all men were fully convinced that the sinner need fear no kind of punishment after death, moral and social order would be seriously menaced. This, however, Divine wisdom

cannot permit. Again, if there were no retribution beyond that which takes place before our eyes here on earth, we should have to consider God extremely indifferent to good and evil, and we could in no way account for His justice and holiness. Nor can it be said: the wicked will be punished, but not by any positive infliction: for either death will be the end of their existence, or, forfeiting the rich reward of the good, they will enjoy some lesser degree of happiness. These are arbitrary and vain subterfuges, unsupported by any sound reason; positive punishment is the natural recompense of evil. Besides, due proportion between demerit and punishment would be rendered impossible by an indiscriminate annihilation of all the wicked. And finally, if men knew that their sins would not be followed by sufferings, the mere threat of annihilation at the moment of death, and still less the prospect of a somewhat lower degree of beatitude, would not suffice to deter them from sin. Furthermore, reason easily understands that in the next life the just will be made happy as a reward of their virtue (see HEAVEN). But the punishment of evil is the natural counterpart of the reward of virtue. Hence, there will also be punishment for sin in the next life. Accordingly, we find among all nations the belief that evil-doers will be punished after death. This universal conviction of mankind is an additional proof for the existence of hell. For it is impossible that, in regard to the fundamental questions of their being and their destiny, all men should fall into the same error; else the power of human reason would be essentially deficient, and the order of this world would be unduly wrapt in mystery; this however, is repugnant both to nature and to the wisdom of the Creator. On the belief of all nations in the existence of hell cf. Lken, "Die Traditionen des Menschengeschlechts" (2nd ed., Mnster, 1869); Knabenbauer, "Das Zeugnis des Menschengeschlechts fur die Unsterblichkeit der Seele" (1878). The few men who, despite the morally universal conviction of the human race, deny the existence of hell, are mostly atheists and Epicureans. But if the view of such men in the fundamental question of our being could be the true one, apostasy would be the way to light, truth, and wisdom. III. ETERNITY OF HELL Many admit the existence of hell, but deny the eternity of its punishment. Conditionalists hold only a hypothetical immortality of the soul, and assert that after undergoing a certain amount of punishment, the souls of the wicked will be annihilated. Among the Gnostics the Valentinians held this doctrine, and later on also Arnobius, the Socinians, many Protestants both in the past and in our own times, especially of late (Edw. White, "Life in Christ", New York, 1877). The Universalists teach that in the end all the damned, at least all human souls, will attain beatitude (apokatastasis ton panton, restitutio omnium, according to Origen). This was a tenet of the Origenists and the Misericordes of whom St. Augustine speaks (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xviii, n. 1, in P.L., XLI, 732). There were individual adherents of this opinion in every century, e.g. Scotus Eriugena; in particular, many rationalistic Protestants of the last centuries defended this belief, e.g. in England, Farrar, "Eternal Hope" (five sermons preached in Westminster Abbey, London and New York, 1878). Among Catholics, Hirscher and Schell have recently expressed the opinion that those who do not die in the state of grace can still be converted after death if they are not too wicked and impenitent.

The Holy Bible is quite explicit in teaching the eternity of the pains of hell. The torments of the damned shall last forever and ever (Apoc., xiv, 11; xix, 3; xx, 10). They are everlasting just as are the joys of heaven (Matt. xxv, 46). Of Judas Christ says: "it were better for him, if that man had not been born" (Matt., xxvi, 24). But this would not have been true if Judas was ever to be released from hell and admitted to eternal happiness. Again, God says of the damned: "Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched" (Is., lxvi, 24; Mark ix, 43, 45, 47). The fire of hell is repeatedly called eternal and unquenchable. The wrath of God abideth on the damned (John, iii, 36); they are vessels of Divine wrath (Rom., ix, 22); they shall not possess the Kingdom of God (I Cor., vi, 10; Gal. v, 21), etc. The objections adduced from Scripture against this doctrine are so meaningless that they are not worth while discussing in detail. The teaching of the fathers is not less clear and decisive (cf. Patavius, "De Angelis", III, viii). We merely call to mind the testimony of the martyrs who often declared that they were glad to suffer pain of brief duration in order to escape eternal torments; e.g. "Martyrium Polycarpi", c. ii (cf. Atzberger, "Geschichte", II, 612 sqq.). It is true that Origen fell into error on this point; but precisely for this error he was condemned by the Church (Canones adv. Origenem ex Justiniani libro adv. Origen., can. ix; Hardouin, III, 279 E; Denz., n. 211). In vain attempts were made to undermine the authority of these canons (cf. Dickamp, "Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten", Mnster, 1899, 137). Besides even in Origen we find the orthodox teaching on the eternity of the pains of hell; for in his words the faithful Christian was again and again victorious over the doubting philosopher. Gregory of Nyssa seems to have favoured the errors of Origen; many, however, believe that his statements can be shown to be in harmony with Catholic doctrine. But the suspicions that have been cast on some passages of Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome are decidedly without justification (cf. Pesch, "Theologische Zeitfragen", 2nd series, 190 sqq.). The Church professes her faith in the eternity of the pains of hell in clear terms in the Athanasian Creed (Denz., nn. 40), in authentic doctrinal decisions (Denz, nn. 211, 410, 429, 807, 835, 915), and in countless passages of her liturgy; she never prays for the damned. Hence, beyond the possibility of doubt, the Church expressly teaches the eternity of the pains of hell as a truth of faith which no one can deny or call in question without manifest heresy. But what is the attitude of mere reason towards this doctrine? Just as God must appoint some fixed term for the time of trial, after which the just will enter into the secure possession of a happiness that can never again be lost in all eternity, so it is likewise appropriate that after the expiration of that term the wicked will be cut off from all hope of conversion and happiness. For the malice of men cannot compel God to prolong the appointed time of probation and to grant them again and again, without end, the power of deciding their lot for eternity. Any obligation to act in this manner would be unworthy of God, because it would make Him dependent on the caprice of human malice, would rob His threats in great part of their efficacy, and would offer the amplest scope and the strongest incentive to human presumption. God has actually appointed the end of this present life, or the moment of death, as the term of man's probation. For in that moment there takes place in our life an essential and momentous change; from the state of union with the body the soul passes into a life apart. No other sharply defined instant of our life is of like importance. Hence we must conclude that death is the end of our probation; for it is meet that our trial should terminate at a moment of our existence so prominent and significant as to be easily perceived by every man. Accordingly, it is the belief of all people that eternal retribution is dealt out immediately after death. This conviction of mankind is an additional proof of our thesis.

Finally, the preservation of moral and social order would not be sufficiently provided for, if men knew that the time of trial were to be continued after death. Many believe that reason cannot give any conclusive proof for the eternity of the pains of hell, but that it can merely show that this doctrine does not involve any contradiction. Since the Church has made no decision on this point, each one is entirely free to embrace this opinion. As is apparent, the author of this article does not hold it. We admit that God might have extended the time of trial beyond death; however, had He done so, He would have permitted man to know about it, and would have made corresponding provision for the maintenance of moral order in this life. We may further admit that it is not intrinsically impossible for God to annihilate the sinner after some definite amount of punishment; but this would be less in conformity with the nature of man's immortal soul; and, secondly, we know of no fact that might give us any right to suppose God will act in such a manner. The objection is made that there is no proportion between the brief moment of sin and an eternal punishment. But why not? We certainly admit a proportion between a momentary good deed and its eternal reward, not, it is true, a proportion of duration, but a proportion between the law and its appropriate sanction. Again, sin is an offence against the infinite authority of God, and the sinner is in some way aware of this, though but imperfectly. Accordingly there is in sin an approximation to infinite malice which deserves an eternal punishment. Finally, it must be remembered that, although the act of sinning is brief, the guilt of sin remains forever; for in the next life the sinner never turns away from his sin by a sincere conversion. It is further objected that the sole object of punishment must be to reform the evil-doer. This is not true. Besides punishments inflicted for correction, there are also punishments for the satisfaction of justice. But justice demands that whoever departs from the right way in his search for happiness shall not find his happiness, but lose it. The eternity of the pains of hell responds to this demand for justice. And, besides, the fear of hell does really deter many from sin; and thus, in as far as it is threatened by God, eternal punishment also serves for the reform of morals. But if God threatens man with the pains of hell, He must also carry out His threat if man does not heed it by avoiding sin. For solving other objections it should be noted: * God is not only infinitely good, He is infinitely wise, just, and holy. * No one is cast into hell unless he has fully and entirely deserved it. * The sinner perseveres forever in his evil disposition. * We must not consider the eternal punishment of hell as a series of separate of distinct terms of punishment, as if God were forever again and again pronouncing a new sentence and inflicting new penalties, and as if He could never satisfy His desire of vengeance. Hell is, especially in the eyes of God, one and indivisible in its entirety; it is but one sentence and one penalty. We may represent to ourselves a punishment of indescribable intensity as in a certain sense the equivalent

of an eternal punishment; this may help us to see better how God permits the sinner to fall into hell -- how a man who sets at naught all Divine warnings, who fails to profit by all the patient forbearance God has shown him, and who in wanton disobedience is absolutely bent on rushing into eternal punishment, can be finally permitted by God's just indignation to fall into hell. In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell. Thus some argued from a false interpretation of I Peter 3:19 sq., that Christ freed several damned souls on the occasion of His descent into hell. Others were misled by untrustworthy stories into the belief that the prayers of Gregory the Great rescued the Emperor Trajan from hell. But now theologians are unanimous in teaching that such exceptions never take place and never have taken place, a teaching which should be accepted. If this be true, how can the Church pray in the Offertory of the Mass for the dead: "Libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni et de profundo lacu" etc.? Many think the Church uses these words to designate purgatory. They can be explained more readily, however, if we take into consideration the peculiar spirit of the Church's liturgy; sometimes she refers her prayers not to the time at which they are said, but to the time for which they are said. Thus the offertory in question is referred to the moment when the soul is about to leave the body, although it is actually said some time after that moment; and as if he were actually at the death-beds of the faithful, the priest implores God to preserve their souls from hell. But whichever explanation be preferred, this much remains certain, that in saying that offertory the Church intends to implore only those graces which the soul is still capable of receiving, namely, the grace of a happy death or the release from purgatory. IV. IMPENITENCE OF THE DAMNED The damned are confirmed in evil; every act of their will is evil and inspired by hatred of God. This is the common teaching of theology; St. Thomas sets it forth in many passages. Nevertheless, some have held the opinion that, although the damned cannot perform any supernatural action, they are still able to perform, now and then, some naturally good deed; thus far the Church has not condemned this opinion. The author of this article maintains that the common teaching is the true one; for in hell the separation from the sanctifying power of Divine love is complete. Many assert that this inability to do good works is physical, and assign the withholding of all grace as its proximate cause; in doing so, they take the term grace in its widest meaning, i.e. every Divine co-operation both in natural and in supernatural good actions. The damned, then, can never choose between acting out of love of God and virtue, and acting out of hatred of God. Hatred is the only motive in their power; and they have no other choice than that of showing their hatred of God by one evil action in preference to another. The last and the real cause of their impenitence is the state of sin which they freely chose as their portion on earth and in which they passed, unconverted, into the next life and into that state of permanence (status termini) by nature due to rational creatures, and to an unchangeable attitude of mind. Quite in consonance with their final state, God grants them only such cooperation as corresponds to the attitude which they freely chose as their own in this life. Hence the damned can but hate God and work evil, whilst the just in heaven or in purgatory, being inspired solely by love of God, can but

do good. Therefore, too, the works of the reprobate, in as far as they are inspired by hatred of God, are not formal, but only material sins, because they are performed without the liberty requisite for moral imputability. Formal sin the reprobate commits then only, when, from among several actions in his power, he deliberately chooses that which contains the greater malice. By such formal sins the damned do not incur any essential increase of punishment, because in that final state the very possibility and Divine permission of sin are in themselves a punishment; and, moreover, a sanction of the moral law would be quite meaningless. From what has been said it follows that the hatred which the lost soul bears to God is voluntary in its cause only; and the cause is the deliberate sin which it committed on earth and by which it merited reprobation. It is also obvious that God is not responsible for the reprobate's material sins of hate, because by granting His co-operation in their sinful acts as well as by refusing them every incitement to good, He acts quite in accordance with the nature of their state. Therefore their sins are no more imputable to God than are the blasphemies of a man in the state of total intoxication, although they are not uttered without Divine assistance. The reprobate carries in himself the primary cause of impenitence; it is the guilt of sin which he committed on earth and with which he passed into eternity. The proximate cause of impenitence in hell is God's refusal of every grace and every impulse for good. It would not be intrinsically impossible for God to move the damned to repentance; yet such a course would be out of keeping with the state of final reprobation. The opinion that the Divine refusal of all grace and of every incitement to good is the proximate cause of impenitence, is upheld by many theologians, and in particular by Molina. Suarez considers it probable. Scotus and Vasquez hold similar views. Even the Fathers and St. Thomas may be understood in this sense. Thus St. Thomas teaches (De verit., Q. xxiv, a.10) that the chief cause of impenitence is Divine justice which refuses the damned every grace. Nevertheless many theologians, e.g. Suarez, defend the opinion that the damned are only morally incapable of good; they have the physical power, but the difficulties in their way are so great that they can never be surmounted. The damned can never divert their attention from their frightful torments, and at the same time they know that all hope is lost to them. Hence despair and hatred of God, their just Judge, is almost inevitable, and even the slightest good impulse becomes morally impossible. The Church has not decided this question. The present author prefers Molina's opinion. But if the damned are impenitent, how can Scripture (Wisdom, v) say they repent of their sin? They deplore with the utmost intensity the punishment, but not the malice of sin; to this they cling more tenaciously than ever. Had they an opportunity, they would commit the sin again, not indeed for the sake of its gratification, which they found illusive, but out of sheer hatred of God. They are ashamed of their folly which led them to seek happiness in sin, but not of the malice of sin itself (St. Thomas, Theol. comp., c. cxxv). V. POENA DAMNI The poena damni, or pain of loss, consists in the loss of the beatific vision and in so complete a

separation of all the powers of the soul from God that it cannot find in Him even the least peace and rest. It is accompanied by the loss of all supernatural gifts, e.g. the loss of faith. The characters impressed by the sacraments alone remain to the greater confusion of the bearer. The pain of loss is not the mere absence of superior bliss, but it is also a most intense positive pain. The utter void of the soul made for the enjoyment of infinite truth and infinite goodness causes the reprobate immeasurable anguish. Their consciousness that God, on Whom they entirely depend, is their enemy forever is overwhelming. Their consciousness of having by their own deliberate folly forfeited the highest blessings for transitory and delusive pleasures humiliates and depresses them beyond measure. The desire for happiness inherent in their very nature, wholly unsatisfied and no longer able to find any compensation for the loss of God in delusive pleasure, renders them utterly miserable. Moreover, they are well aware that God is infinitely happy, and hence their hatred and their impotent desire to injure Him fills them with extreme bitterness. And the same is true with regard to their hatred of all the friends of God who enjoy the bliss of heaven. The pain of loss is the very core of eternal punishment. If the damned beheld God face to face, hell itself, notwithstanding its fire, would be a kind of heaven. Had they but some union with God even if not precisely the union of the beatific vision, hell would no longer be hell, but a kind of purgatory. And yet the pain of loss is but the natural consequence of that aversion from God which lies in the nature of every mortal sin. VI. POENA SENSUS The poena sensus, or pain of sense, consists in the torment of fire so frequently mentioned in the Holy Bible. According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct. However, we must not forget two things: from Catharinus (d. 1553) to our times there have never been wanting theologians who interpret the Scriptural term fire metaphorically, as denoting an incorporeal fire; and secondly, thus far the Church has not censured their opinion. Some few of the Fathers also thought of a metaphorical explanation. Nevertheless, Scripture and tradition speak again and again of the fire of hell, and there is no sufficient reason for taking the term as a mere metaphor. It is urged: How can a material fire torment demons, or human souls before the resurrection of the body? But, if our soul is so joined to the body as to be keenly sensitive to the pain of fire, why should the omnipotent God be unable to bind even pure spirits to some material substance in such a manner that they suffer a torment more or less similar to the pain of fire which the soul can feel on earth? The reply indicates, as far as possible, how we may form an idea of the pain of fire which the demons suffer. Theologians have elaborated various theories on this subject, which, however, we do not wish to detail here (cf. the very minute study by Franz Schmid, "Quaestiones selectae ex theol. dogm.", Paderborn, 1891, q. iii; also Guthberlet, "Die poena sensus" in "Katholik", II, 1901, 305 sqq., 385 sqq.). It is quite superfluous to add that the nature of hell-fire is different from that of our ordinary fire; for instance, it continues to burn without the need of a continually renewed supply of fuel. How are we to form a conception of that fire in detail remains quite undetermined; we merely know that it is corporeal. The demons suffer the torment of fire, even when, by Divine permission, they

leave the confines of hell and roam about on earth. In what manner this happens is uncertain. We may assume that they remain fettered inseparably to a portion of that fire. The pain of sense is the natural consequence of that inordinate turning to creatures which is involved in every mortal sin. It is meet that whoever seeks forbidden pleasure should find pain in return. (Cf. Heuse, "Das Feuer der Hlle" in "Katholik", II, 1878, 225 sqq., 337 sqq., 486 sqq., 581 sqq.; "Etudes religieuses", L, 1890, II, 309, report of an answer of the Poenitentiaria, 30 April, 1890; Knabenbauer, "In Matth., xxv, 41".) VII. ACCIDENTAL PAINS OF THE DAMNED According to theologians the pain of loss and the pain of sense constitute the very essence of hell, the former being by far the most dreadful part of eternal punishment. But the damned also suffer various "accidental" punishments. * Just as the blessed in heaven are free from all pain, so, on the other hand, the damned never experience even the least real pleasure. In hell separation from the blissful influence of Divine love has reached its consummation. * The reprobate must live in the midst of the damned; and their outbursts of hatred or of reproach as they gloat over his sufferings, and their hideous presence, are an ever fresh source of torment. * The reunion of soul and body after the Resurrection will be a special punishment for the reprobate, although there will be no essential change in the pain of sense which they are already suffering. As to the punishments visited upon the damned for their venial sins, cf. Suarez, "De peccatis", disp. vii, s. 4. VIII. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PAINS OF HELL (1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment -- all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God. (2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the

opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest. The Church has never condemned this opinion in express terms. But now theologians are justly unanimous in rejecting it. St. Thomas condemns it severely (In IV Sent., dist. xlv, Q. xxix, cl.1). [Cf. Merkle, "Die Sabbatruhe in der Hlle" in "Romische Quartalschrift" (1895), 489 sqq.; see also Prudentius.] However, accidental changes in the pains of hell are not excluded. Thus it may be that the reprobate is sometimes more and sometimes less tormented by his surroundings. Especially after the last judgment there will be an accidental increase in punishment; for then the demons will never again be permitted to leave the confines of hell, but will be finally imprisoned for all eternity; and the reprobate souls of men will be tormented by union with their hideous bodies. (3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matt., xxvi, 24). Not long ago Mivart (The Nineteenth Century, Dec., 1892, Febr. and Apr., 1893) advocated the opinion that the pains of the damned would decrease with time and that in the end their lot would not be so extremely sad; that they would finally reach a certain kind of happiness and would prefer existence to annihilation; and although they would still continue to suffer a punishment symbolically described as a fire by the Bible, yet they would hate God no longer, and the most unfortunate among them be happier than many a pauper in this life. It is quite obvious that all this is opposed to Scripture and the teaching of the Church. The articles cited were condemned by the Congregation of the Index and the Holy Office on 14 and 19 July, 1893 (cf. "Civilt Cattolia", I, 1893, 672).

http://www.wcr.ab.ca/catechism/cat49.shtml

JUSTIFICATION, GRACE AND SANCTIFICATION


From the Cathecism http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm#I I. JUSTIFICATION 1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism: But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves as dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.35 1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ's Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself:36 [God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . . For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.37 1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.39 1990 Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals. 1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.41 1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent: When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.42 1994 Justification is the most excellent work of God's love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the opinion of St. Augustine that "the justification of the wicked is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth," because "heaven and earth will pass away but the salvation and justification of the elect . . . will not pass away."43 He holds also that the justification of sinners surpasses the creation of the angels in justice, in that it bears witness to a greater mercy. 1995 The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man,"44 justification entails the sanctification of his whole being: Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification. . . . 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.45 II. GRACE

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46 1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church. 1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.47 1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:48 Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.49 2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God's call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God's interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification. 2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"50 Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.51 2002 God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart

of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of "eternal life" respond, beyond all hope, to this desire: If at the end of your very good works . . ., you rested on the seventh day, it was to foretell by the voice of your book that at the end of our works, which are indeed "very good" since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you on the sabbath of eternal life.52 2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."53 Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.54 2004 Among the special graces ought to be mentioned the graces of state that accompany the exercise of the responsibilities of the Christian life and of the ministries within the Church: Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; he who teaches, in his teaching; he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.55 2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved.56 However, according to the Lord's words "Thus you will know them by their fruits"57 - reflection on God's blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty. A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: "Asked if she knew that she was in God's grace, she replied: 'If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.'"58 III. MERIT You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are

crowning your own gifts.59 2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it. 2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator. 2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit. 2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God's gifts."62 2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions. 2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace. After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our

justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.63 IV. CHRISTIAN HOLINESS 2012 "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him . . . For those whom he fore knew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified."64 2013 "All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity."65 All are called to holiness: "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."66 In order to reach this perfection the faithful should use the strength dealt out to them by Christ's gift, so that . . . doing the will of the Father in everything, they may wholeheartedly devote themselves to the glory of God and to the service of their neighbor. Thus the holiness of the People of God will grow in fruitful abundance, as is clearly shown in the history of the Church through the lives of so many saints.67 2014 Spiritual progress tends toward ever more intimate union with Christ. This union is called "mystical" because it participates in the mystery of Christ through the sacraments - "the holy mysteries" - and, in him, in the mystery of the Holy Trinity. God calls us all to this intimate union with him, even if the special graces or extraordinary signs of this mystical life are granted only to some for the sake of manifesting the gratuitous gift given to all. 2015 The way of perfection passes by way of the Cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and spiritual battle.68 Spiritual progress entails the ascesis and mortification that gradually lead to living in the peace and joy of the Beatitudes: He who climbs never stops going from beginning to beginning, through beginnings that have no end. He never stops desiring what he already knows.69 2016 The children of our holy mother the Church rightly hope for the grace of final perseverance and the recompense of God their Father for the good works accomplished with his grace in communion with Jesus.70 Keeping the same rule of life, believers share the "blessed hope" of those whom the divine mercy gathers into the "holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."71

IN BRIEF 2017 The grace of the Holy Spirit confers upon us the righteousness of God. Uniting us by faith and Baptism to the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, the Spirit makes us sharers in his life. 2018 Like conversion, justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high. 2019 Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man. 2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God's mercy. 2021 Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons. It introduces us into the intimacy of the Trinitarian life. 2022 The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man. Grace responds to the deepest yearnings of human freedom, calls freedom to cooperate with it, and perfects freedom. 2023 Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. 2024 Sanctifying grace makes us "pleasing to God." Charisms, special graces of the Holy Spirit, are oriented to sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. God also acts through many actual graces, to be distinguished from habitual grace which is permanent in us. 2025 We can have merit in God's sight only because of God's free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man's collaboration. Man's merit is due to God. 2026 The grace of the Holy Spirit can confer true merit on us, by virtue of our adoptive filiation, and in accordance with God's gratuitous justice. Charity is the principal source of merit in us before God. 2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy

Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods. 2028 "All Christians . . . are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity" (LG 40 2). "Christian perfection has but one limit, that of having none" (St. Gregory of Nyssa, De vita Mos.:PG 44, 300D). 2029 "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Mt 16:24).

http://www.wcr.ab.ca/catechism/cat-21.shtml Grace and Justification By GLEN ARGAN WCR Editor Read: Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1987-2011 We can't save ourselves. That's the prime conclusion of Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14). In the parable, the Pharisee goes before God and, with stunning arrogance, recites his good deeds and proclaims how much better he is than the rest of the riff-raff. But Jesus says salvation comes not to him but to the tax collector who comes to God with empty hands, beating his breast and saying, "God, be merciful to me a sinner!" Now, we've heard this parable so often we may miss some of what is going on here. We may tend to hear it as a condemnation of the Pharisee's self-righteousness and judgmentalism towards others. It is that. But we don't need to be as blatantly arrogant as the Pharisee to repeat his sin. Philosopher Peter Kreeft sometimes points out that most of his Catholic students in first year university still don't know how to get to heaven. They believe basically that if you don't hurt too many people, try your best to live a good life and try to make the world a better place, you'll earn your eternal reward.

But really that sort of thinking is little different from that of the Pharisee. Kreeft's students may not judge anyone harshly as the Pharisee does, but they still believe good works are the path to salvation. Jesus, however, says it was the tax collector who "went down to his home justified." The tax collector who had done nothing good and who had likely bilked many of his neighbours out of their savings. This tax collector was justified because he admitted he had sinned and that salvation was utterly impossible for him without the mercy of God. This is true for everyone of us. No matter what great accomplishments we have had or what marvellous deeds we have done, we cannot be saved unless we throw ourselves at the mercy of God. The traditional hymn Amazing Grace is now being laundered in some quarters so that God is no longer praised for saving "a wretch like me." The term "wretch" contradicts the Gospel of self-esteem. But the truth is we are all wretched before God. We have all -- or at least I have -done disgusting things for which we deserve to be cast forever out of God's sight. Wretchedness is our name, sin our way of life. If our good works are the pathway to heaven, the place would be bereft of human habitation. However, there are people in heaven. They got there not only by being cleansed from their sins but by being given a share in divine life. They have become like God. Sharing in divine life is the most remarkable thing we will ever hear of. We can become God's children just like Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus was God's Son by nature, but we become God's children by adoption. This is the power of the Holy Spirit who is given to us, who dwells within us. The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes St. Athanasius (and others) to this effect: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God" (no. 460). The only way we can enter heaven is not by doing good deeds and obeying all the rules, but by becoming like God. Of course, once we have been transformed into children of God, we will do marvellous deeds in Christ. But those deeds don't earn us a place in heaven; they display the heavenly life that is already in us. How do we come to share in divine life? Through Baptism. We strengthen and nourish that new life through the other sacraments, especially the Eucharist, through prayer, through self-denial and through good works done in Christ. When that new life breaks down and is destroyed, we can be brought back to life through "the labourious Baptism" -- the sacrament of Confession. How do we know God is alive within us? We don't know, for sure. To say otherwise is to commit

the sin of presumption. There is no sure guide to know how we stand with God. Even St. Joan of Arc, when asked by her inquisitors whether she was in a state of grace, responded, "If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there" (no. 2005). We can't save ourselves. But through faith and the grace of God, we can be brought into communion with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is an incredible thing. St. Augustine said, "The justification of the wicked is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth" (no. 1994). Beside this, all our great human accomplishments are but dust. The nurturing of this relationship with God is the greatest possible end to which we can devote our lives. It is also the only pursuit which will last for eternity.

JUSTIFICATION
From Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm Justification (Latin justificatio; Greek dikaiosis.) A biblio-ecclesiastical term; which denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God. Considered as an act (actus justificationis), justification is the work of God alone, presupposing, however, on the part of the adult the process of justification and the cooperation of his free will with God's preventing and helping grace (gratia praeveniens et cooperans). Considered as a state or habit (habitus justificationis), it denotes the continued possession of a quality inherent in the soul, which theologians aptly term sanctifying grace. I. THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON JUSTIFICATION We have an authentic explanation of the Catholic doctrine in the famous "Decretum de justificatione" of the Sixth Session (13 Jan., 1547) of the Council of Trent, which in sixteen chapters (cf. Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.", nn.793-810) and thirty-three canons (l.c., 811-43) gives in the clearest manner all necessary information about the process, causes, effects, and qualities of justification. (1) The Process of Justification (Processus justificationis) Since justification as an application of the Redemption to the individual presupposes the fall of the entire human race, the Council of Trent quite logically begins with the fundamental statement that original sin has weakened and deflected, but not entirely destroyed or extinguished the freedom of the human will (Trent, sess. VI, cap. i: "Liberum arbitrium minime extinctum, viribus licet attenuatum et inclinatum"). Nevertheless, as the children of Adam were really corrupted by original sin, they could not of themselves arise from their fall nor shake off the bonds of sin, death, and Satan. Neither the natural faculties left in man, nor the observance of the Jewish Law could achieve this. Since God alone was able to free us from this great misery, He sent in His infinite love His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, Who by His bitter passion and death on the cross redeemed fallen man and thus became the Mediator between God and man. But if the grace of Redemption merited by Christ is to be appropriated by the individual, he must be "regenerated by God", that is he must be justified. What then is meant by justification? Justification denotes that change or transformation in the soul by which man is transferred from the state of original sin, in which as a child of Adam he was born, to that of grace and Divine sonship through Jesus Christ, the second Adam, our Redeemer (l.c., cap.iv: "Justificatio impii. . . translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei per secundum Adam, Jesum Christum, Salvatorem nostrum"). In the New Law this

justification cannot, according to Christ's precept, be effected except at the fountain of regeneration, that is, by the baptism of water. While in Baptism infants are forthwith cleansed of the stain of original sin without any preparation on their part, the adult must pass through a moral preparation, which consists essentially in turning from sin and towards God. This entire process receives its first impulse from the supernatural grace of vocation (absolutely independent of man's merits), and requires an intrinsic union of the Divine and human action, of grace and moral freedom of election, in such a manner, however, that the will can resist, and with full liberty reject the influence of grace (Trent, l.c., can.iv: "If any one should say that free will, moved and set in action by God, cannot cooperate by assenting to God's call, nor dissent if it wish. . . let him be anathema"). By this decree the Council not only condemned the Protestant view that the will in the reception of grace remains merely passive, but also forestalled the Jansenistic heresy regarding the impossibility of resisting actual grace. With what little right heretics in defence of their doctrine appeal to St. Augustine, may be seen from the following brief extract from his writings: "He who made you without your doing does not without your action justify you. Without your knowing He made you, with your willing He justifies you, but it is He who justifies, that the justice be not your own" (Serm. clxix, c. xi, n.13). Regarding St. Augustine's doctrine cf. J. Jausbach, "Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus", II, Freiburg, 1909, pp. 208-58. We now come to the different states in the process of justification. The Council of Trent assigns the first and most important place to faith, which is styled "the beginning, foundation and root of all justification" (Trent, l.c., cap.viii). Cardinal Pallavicini (Hist. Conc. Trid., VIII, iv, 18) tells us that all the bishops present at the council fully realized how important it was to explain St. Paul's saying that man is justified through faith. Comparing Bible and Tradition they could not experience any serious difficulty in showing that fiduciary faith was an absolutely new invention and that the faith of justification was identical with a firm belief in the truths and promises of Divine revelation (l. c.: "illumque [Deum] tanquam omnis justitiae fontem diligere incipiunt"). The next step is a genuine sorrow for all sin with the resolution to begin a new life by receiving holy baptism and by observing the commandments of God. The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water, inasmuch as by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God. The same process of justification is repeated in those who by mortal sin have lost their baptismal innocence; with this modification, however, that the Sacrament of Penance replaces baptism. Considering merely the psychological analysis of the conversion of sinners, as given by the council, it is at once evident that faith alone, whether fiduciary or dogmatic, cannot justify man (Trent, l. c., can. xii: "Si quis dixerit, fidem justificantem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam divinae misericordiae, peccata remittentis propter Christum, vel eam fiduciam solam esse, qua justificamur, a.s."). Since our Divine adoption and friendship with God is based on perfect love of God or charity (cf. Gal., v, 6; I Cor., xiii; James, ii, 17 sqq.), dead faith devoid of charity (fides informis) cannot possess any justifying power. Only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man, and this even before the actual reception of baptism or penance, although not without a desire of the sacrament (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. iv, xiv). But, not to close the gates of heaven against pagans and those non-Catholics, who

without their fault do not know or do not recognize the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Catholic theologians unanimously hold that the desire to receive these sacraments is implicitly contained in the serious resolve to do all that God has commanded, even if His holy will should not become known in every detail. (2) The Formal Cause of Justification The Council of Trent decreed that the essence of active justification comprises not only forgiveness of sin, but also "sanctification and renovation of the interior man by means of the voluntary acceptation of sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts" (Trent, l. c., cap. vii: "Non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum"). In order to exclude the Protestant idea of a merely forensic absolution and exterior declaration of righteousness, special stress is laid on the fact that we are justified by God's justice, not that whereby He himself is just but that whereby He makes us just, in so far as He bestows on us the gift of His grace which renovates the soul interiorly and adheres to it as the soul's own holiness (Trent, l. c., cap. vii: "Unica formalis causa [justificationis] est justitia Dei, non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati, renovamur spiritu mentis nostrae: et non modo reputamur, sed vere justi nominamur et sumus, justitiam in nobis recipientes unusquisque suam"). This inner quality of righteousness and sanctity is universally termed "sanctifying (or habitual) grace", and stands in marked contrast to an exterior, imputed sanctity, as well as to the idea of merely covering and concealing sin. By this, however, we do not assert that the "justitia Dei extra nos" is of no importance in the process of justification. For, even if it is not the formal cause of justification (causa formalis), it is nevertheless its true exemplar (causa exemplaris), inasmuch as the soul receives a sanctity in imitation of God's own holiness. The Council of Trent (l. c. cap. vii), moreover, did not neglect to enumerate in detail the other causes of justification: the glory of God and of Christ as the final cause (causa finalis), the mercy of God as the efficient cause (causa efficiens), the Passion of Christ as the meritorious cause (causa meritoria), the reception of the Sacraments as the instrumental cause (causa instrumentalis). Thus each and every factor receives its full share and is assigned its proper place. Hence the Catholic doctrine on justification, in welcome contrast to the Protestant teaching, stands out as a reasonable, consistent, harmonious system. For further explanation of the nature of sanctifying grace, see SUPERNATURAL GRACE. Regarding the false doctrine of the Catholic theologian Hermes, cf. Kleutgen, "Theologie der Vorzeit", II (2nd ed., Munster, 1872), 254-343. According to the Council of Trent sanctifying grace is not merely a formal cause, but "the only formal cause" (unica causa formalis) of our justification. By this important decision the Council excluded the error of Butzer and some Catholic theologians (Gropper, Scripando, and Albert Pighius) who maintained that an additional "external favour of God" (favor Dei externus) belonged to the essence of justification. The same decree also effectually set aside the opinion of Peter Lombard, that the formal cause of justification (i.e. sanctifying grace) is nothing less than the Person of the Holy Ghost, Who is the hypostatic holiness and charity, or the uncreated grace

(gratia increata). Since justification consists in an interior sanctity and renovation of spirit, its formal cause evidently must be a created grace (gratia creata), a permanent quality, a supernatural modification or accident (accidens) of the soul. Quite distinct from this is the question whether the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost, although not required for justification (inasmuch as sanctifying grace alone suffices), be necessary as a prerequisite for Divine adoption. Several great theologians have answered in the affirmative, as for instance Lessius ("De summo bono", II, i; "De perfect. moribusque divin.", XII, ii); Petavius ("De Trinit.", viii, 4 sqq.); Thomassin ("De Trinit.", viii, 9 sqq.), and Hurter ("Compend. theol. dogmat.", III, 6th ed., pp. 162 sqq.). The solution of the lively controversy on this point between Fr. Granderath ("Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie", 1881, pp. 283 sqq.; 1883, 491 sqq., 593 sqq.; 1884, 545 sqq.) and Professor Scheeben ("Dogmatik", II, sec. 169; "Katholik", 1883, I, 142 sqq.; II, 561 sqq.; 1884, I, 18 sqq.; II, 465 sqq., 610 sqq.) seems to lie in the following distinction: the Divine adoption, inseparably connected with sanctifying grace, is not constituted by the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost, but receives therefrom its full development and perfection. (3) The Effects of Justification The two elements of active justification, forgiveness of sin and sanctification, furnish at the same time the elements of habitual justification, freedom from sin and holiness. According to the Catholic doctrine, however, this freedom from sin and this sanctity are effected, not by two distinct and successive Divine acts, but by a single act of God. For, just as light dispels darkness, so the infusion of sanctifying grace eo ipso dispels from the soul original and mortal sin. (Cf. Trent, sess. VI, can. xi: "Si quis dixerit, homines justificari vel sola imputatione justitiae Christi, vel sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia et caritate, quae in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum diffundatur atque illis inhaereat. . ., a.s.") In considering the effects of justification it will be useful to compare the Catholic doctrine of real forgiveness of sin with the Protestant theory that sin is merely "covered" and not imputed. By declaring the grace of justification, or sanctifying grace, to be the only formal cause of justification, the Council of Trent intended to emphasize the fact that in possessing sanctifying grace we possess the whole essence of the state of justification with all its formal effects; that is, we possess freedom from sin and sanctity, and indeed freedom from sin by means of sanctity. Such a remission of sin could not consist in a mere covering or non-imputation of sins, which continue their existence out of view; it must necessarily consist in the real obliteration and annihilation of the guilt. This genuinely Biblical concept of justification forms such an essential element of Catholicism, that even Antonio Rosminis's theory, standing half way between Protestantism and Catholicism, is quite irreconcilable with it. According to Rosmini, there are two categories of sin: * such as God merely covers and does not impute (cf. Ps., xxxi, 1); * such as God really forgives and blots out. By the latter Rosmini understood deliberate sins of commission (culpae actuales et liberae), by the former indeliberate sins (peccata non libera), which "do no harm to those who are of the

people of God". This opinion was censured by the Holy Office (14 Dec., 1887), not only because without any reason it defended a twofold remission of sin, but also because it stamped indeliberate acts as sins (cf. Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.", n.1925). Although it is a Catholic dogma that sanctifying grace and sin (original and mortal) do never exist simultaneously in the soul, there may be, nevertheless a diversity of opinion regarding the extent of this incompatibility, according as it is considered as either moral, physical, or metaphysical in character. According to the now universally rejected opinion of the Nominalists (Occam, Gabriel Biel) and the Scotists (Mastrius, Henno) the contrast between grace and sin is based on a free decree and acceptation of God, or in other words, the contrast is merely moral. This would logically imply in contradiction to the "unica causa formalis" of the Council of Trent, a twofold formal cause of justification (cf. Pohle, "Dogmatik", II, 4th ed., Paderborn, 1909, p.512). Suarez (De gratia, VII, 20) and some of his followers in defending a physical contrast come nearer the truth. In their explanation grace and sin exclude each other with the same necessity as do fire and water, although in both cases God, by a miracle of his omnipotence, could suspend the general law and force the two hostile elements to exist peacefully side by side. This opinion might be safely accepted were sanctifying grace only a physical ornament of the soul. But since in reality it is an ethical form of sanctification by which even an infant in receiving baptism is necessarily made just and pleasing to God, there must be between the concepts of grace and of sin a metaphysical and absolute contradiction, which not even Divine omnipotence can alter and destroy. For this last opinion, defended by the Thomists and the majority of theologians, there is also a solid foundation in Holy Writ. For the contrast between grace and sin is as great as between light and darkness (II Cor., vi, 14; Eph., v, 8), between life and death (Rom., v, 21; Col., ii, 13; I John, iii, 14), between God and idols, Christ and Belial (II Cor., vi, 15 sqq.), etc. Thus it follows from Holy Writ that by the infusion of sanctifying grace sin is destroyed and blotted out of absolute necessity, and that the Protestant theory of "covering and not imputing sin" is both a philosophical and a theological impossibility. Besides the principal effect of justification, i.e. real obliteration of sin by means of sanctification, there is a whole series of other effects: beauty of the soul, friendship with God, and Divine adoption. In the article on GRACE these are described as formal effects of sanctifying grace. In the same article is given an explanation of the supernatural accompaniments -- the three theological virtues, the moral virtues, the seven gifts, and the personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost. These, as freely bestowed gifts of God, cannot be regarded as formal effects of justification. (4) The Qualities of Justification We have seen that Protestants claim the following three qualities for justification: certainty, equality, the impossibility of ever losing it. Diametrically opposed to these qualities are those defended by the Council of Trent (sess. VI, cap. 9-11): uncertainty (incertitudo), inequality (inaequalitas), amissibility (ammisibilitas). Since these qualities of justification are also qualities of sanctifying grace, see GRACE.

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=101 Justification: Doctrine of Council of Trent What is justification? Loosely, it means getting right with God. But there is an impassable gap between the Catholic and the Lutheran position after that point. Luther insisted that even after justification we are totally corrupt and really, have no free will (The Bondage of the Will). The Catholic teaching is that justification means the reception of (sanctifying) grace for the first time. This grace changes us, making us share in the divine nature( 2 Peter 1. 4) which is far different from being totally corrupt. It gives us the basic ability to take part in the face to face vision of God in the next life (1 Cor 13:12). So the soul becomes even now the temple of the Holy Spirit: 1 Cor 6:19 -could we imagine God joining Himself for eternity to a soul that is totally corrupt? Rather, "who can stand when He appears? For He is like the refiner's fire": Mal 3:2). This is a tremendous thought. When I look at you, I do not take you into my mind, I take in an image of you. But no image could let me know what God really is, so there must be no image in the process (Defined thus by Benedict XII: DS 1000). So it must be that God joins Himself directly to the human soul or mind, without even an image in between so that the soul may know Him face to face. 2 Peter 1:4 said by this grace we share in the divine nature. So we are made children of God, "heirs of God, fellow heirs with Christ - provided that we suffer with Him so that we may be glorified with Him": Rom 8:17. We notice the condition attached at the end. We are saved and made holy if and to the extent that we are members of Christ, and like Him. So we are not saved alone, we are saved as brothers of Christ, sharing the same divine nature with Him (2 Pet. 1:4). Now the child of a Father has a claim to inherit. So we have, by justification, a claim to inherit from our Father, to inherit a place in His mansions. But, a merit is simply a claim. So we could say that having grace is a merit. Yet we gained that first grace without any merit of our own. We can, however, merit increases in it (DS 1574), since we then have the dignity of sons of God. If we keep that grace, we will enter His mansions. But we could lose it by mortal sin. So Trent defined: If anyone says that the justification that is received is not kept and even increased before God by good works... A. S." But this presupposes reception of grace for the firs time without any merit at all. As to "keeping" justification: All concrete actions are either good or evil. If we commit evil, mortally, we lose that grace. If we do not commit mortal sin, then this grace is kept. We achieve justification by faith. But Luther, without any checking, simply assumed that faith means confidence that the merits of Christ apply to me. Then I would be infallibly saved, for in a ledger for myself, on the credit page I would write infinity, the merits of Christ; on the debit

page, the number for my sins. Hence no matter how much I have sinned, am sinning, will sin - all is outweighed by the infinite merits of Christ. So I have infallible salvation. The trouble is that, as we said, Luther made no effort to see what St. Paul meant by faith. If we read all of Paul, we find three things:1) If God speaks a truth, we believe it in our mind; 2) If He make a promise, we are confident in it; 3) If He tells us to do something, we must do it-- "the obedience of faith" :Rom 1:5. - Even a standard Protestant reference work, Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, in Supplement, p. 333, describes Pauline faith just as we have done). But poor Luther did not see that faith includes obedience to God, and so he wrote: "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day." (Weimar ed. vol. 2. p. 372; Letters I, Luther's Works, American ed. vol. 48, p. 282. Luther in his Exposition on the Psalms 130. 4; wrote: "If this article [justification by faith] stands, the church stands;' if it falls, the church falls." Since he did not know what St. Paul meant by faith, his church never did stand. -- and further, he had no means of knowing which books are part of Scripture. He tried to say that if a book preaches justification by faith strongly, it is inspired. He did not notice that most books of Scripture do not even mention the subject. Here are the chief texts of the Council of Trent on these matters: First Stage Capitulum 8 on justification. DS 1532: "... we are said to be justified gratuitously for this reason, because nothing of those things that come before justification, whether faith, or works, earns the grace of justification itself... ." Second Stage Canon 32 on Justification. DS 1582: "If any one says that the works of a man who has been justified [has received first grace] are in such a way the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of the one who is justified, or that the one who is justified does not really merit by good works, which are done by him through the grace of God and Jesus Christ [does not really merit] eternal life and the attainment of eternal life itself (if however he dies in grace) and even an increase in glory, let him be anathema." COMMENT: They are merit in that they are a claim to a reward. The claim is established since first grace, unearned, makes us children of God, who as such have a claim to inherit. And we are brothers of Christ, who did establish a claim albeit on the secondary level. After we are made children of God, this dignity gives a ground for merit of additions to grace. Conclusions

1. There is justification by faith, without works. Examine each of the three words: a) Justification: Means getting right with God. It makes us adopted sons (Rom 8. 17) and sharers in the divine nature (2 Pt. 1. 4) and temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 19). That is not a spatial presence, spirits do not take up space. A spirit is present wherever he causes an effect. What effect? The transformation of the soul making it radically capable of the vision of God in the next life: 1 Cor 13.12. b) Faith: It is itself a gift (Eph 2.8). It includes three things according to Paul: belief in mind, confidence, obedience. c) Without works: which works? Not just the ceremonial and dietary works for that could imply that other works can justify us. But they cannot do that for no man is just before God by his own power (Rom 3.24:we are justified gratis). Abraham had works other than those, but they did not earn justification, if they did, he would have a boast, but not before God. Final salvation is an inheritance:1 Cor 6.9-10. We could not earn the inheritance, nor need we do it, but we could earn to lose it: ibid. We are adopted children. But children do not earn their inheritance, though they could earn to lose it: Rom 6.23. We get a claim not of ourselves, but inasmuch as we are brothers/members of Christ, who did earn, and are like Him in all things, including work of rebalancing the objective order: Rom 8.17. Yet we do have a claim, inasmuch as first grace, unmerited, makes us children of God, who as such, have a claim to inherit. 2. What of the OT "justifications"? They did not of themselves give this grace, but promised temporal reward: Probably did not know eternal reward until time of Antiochus IV. -- And no OT sacrifice was provided for sins be yad ramah, but only for sheggagah. 3. Why good works? Because faith includes obedience, which calls for them. Also, out of gratitude to so good a Father who even gives us by grace an inclination to good works. He, being Holiness, loves all that is good, and so is pleased with our good works. But they do not at all earn salvation in primary sense (Cf. DS 1532 above):if they did, we would have a boast.

From http://www.transporter.com/apologia/sc_response.html

The Justificational Process There are three stages of the justificational process: Stage 1 - The Preparatory Stage. This is when the prevenient (antecedent or anticipatory) graces first stirs a person toward an interest in religious truth, towards repentance, and towards faith (Sola Gratia - Grace Alone). It is a free gift, flowing from the grace (or "graciousness") of God (Ephesians 2:8). A gift, however, can either be accepted or refused. While God offers all men the grace to believe in him and to do good (1 Timothy 2:4), each person must freely choose to accept that gift. Stage 2 - Transition from Death to Life. This is the first stage of justification proper. For Catholics, this means that faith is the beginning, foundation and root of all justification, since only faith makes possible the acts of hope and charity (i.e. love for God) which are also required for our salvation. Jesus' first recorded command was "Repent, and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:15) and the New Testament clearly states that salvation is received by faith in God through Jesus Christ. Catholics firmly believe in the importance of faith in accepting God's gift of salvation. "I solemnly assure you," Jesus said, "the man who hears my word and has faith in him who sent me possesses eternal life" (John 5:24). Many other New Testament texts affirm that faith in Jesus Christ leads to salvation. (See Mark 16:16; John 3:16, John 6:28-29, John 11:25-27, John 30:30-31; Ephesians 2:8-10; 2 Thessalonians 2:13.) Stage 3 - Living a Christian Life. Faith is more than just a major decision that happens once, twice, or a few times in one's life. Catholic teaching considers "faith" as a way of life. Our faith is challenged with the problems of growth and perseverance. The man justified by faith is called to "walk" with God, to progress in holiness. Catholics realize the importance of the initial conversion and commitment to Christ, but they also emphasize the challenge of living out faith in Jesus Christ every day, by God's grace and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the born-again Christian's good works merit for him the increase of grace and increase of the Christian virtues. In order for us to understand how a man can "merit" an increase of grace through good works, we must take a closer look at grace. Grace is the quality through which the soul is made alive and enabled to function as God intended it to function. The initial, justifying grace we receive in the preparatory stage is a quality for which man has no natural capacity, to which he has no natural right, and towards which he has no natural inclination. It is a pure surprise; a pure gift from God; an elevation of our nature rather than a part of it. Once we have been elevated to a state of grace,

we become capable of cooperating with God's further graces, since He has now given us the capacity and the inclination for such things. However, this does not cancel the prevenient graces we received as a free, undeserved, unearned gift from God. It only means that our very capacity to cooperate is not natively ours but rather a gift to us. As a result, every God-pleasing act of ours remains so rooted in God's initial gift that it is simply an outpouring of that gift. Catholics believe that the life of faith is also a life of charity or "good works". By "good works" Catholics do not mean the "works of the law" that Paul condemns, but rather the "works" of active charity or love that flow from living faith in Jesus Christ. True faith will express itself in a person's "works" - the way the person actually lives. This understanding is completely biblical! Jesus and the New Testament authors insist that people will be judged not only by their faith, but also according to their actual conduct or works. Jesus warned, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord.' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). A number of other passages speak of the role of good works in salvation (see Matthew 16:27; Romans 2:2-10; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Peter 1:17). Genuine faith requires an active response, which is charity, love, or good works. Paul calls this "faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6).

http://members.tripod.com/documentlibrary/id16.htm

The Doctrine of Justification by Bill Rutland Introduction: In his Exposition of psalm 103.4 Martin Luther wrote concerning the doctrine of justification by faith alone, "If this article stands, the church stands; if it collapses, the church collapses." As an Evangelical I fully agreed with Luther. I would have taken Luther one step farther by saying "If there is no justification by faith alone then there is no salvation and we are damned in our sins." I would quote Isaiah 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. No matter how hard I tried I was fully incapable of doing anything pleasing to God. He is perfect; I am an imperfect sinner. All my acts, no matter how righteous they may seem are stained with the imperfection of sin. It was only through the perfect righteous act of Christs death on the

cross that I find acceptance with God. Catholics, on the other hand, I thought, believed that they could work their way to heaven. If we can earn our own salvation, then that nullifies Christs death on the cross. On my journey into the Catholic Church drew nearer to the day that I would come into full communion with the Church, this questioned of how Catholic viewed salvation became a point of crisis. I kept asking, "How do Catholics believe that we are saved?" I could never get a satisfactory answer. It was not that Catholics didnt know how they were saved, but they couldnt explain it to me in a way that my Protestant ears could understand. What is Justification? What do we mean by the word Justification? Part of the problem in speaking to Protestants about salvation is that we understand justification differently. Protestant doctrine speaks of a forensic or imputed justification. Protestant theologian Merrill Unger defines Justification this way: Justification is a divine act whereby an infinitely Holy God declares a believing sinner to be righteous and acceptable before Him because Christ had borne the sinners sin on the cross, and "has been made unto him righteousness."1 Catholic doctrine, on the other hand, sees justification not as imputed but infused. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines justification in this way: The process by which a sinner is made righteous, pure and holy before God... Justification in the Catholic Tradition comes about by means of faith in Christ, and in a life of good works lived in response to Gods invitation to believe.2 In the Protestant view the sinner is "covered" by the righteousness of Christ. Luther likened it to a "dung heap covered with snow." Catholic doctrine teaches that the righteousness of Christ does not cover the sinner, but is "infused" into his soul; as Paul says we are, "filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:11). The imputed and infused views of Justification form the core of Protestant and Catholic soteriologies (doctrine of salvation). Sola Fide Sola fide or justification by faith alone was the foundational creed of the Reformation. A man is saved and justified, the Reformers taught, by faith in Christ alone apart from anything else. Salvation for them was not dependent on the sacraments, confession, or even obedience to

Christ. The late Protestant theologian Augustus Strong writes: The declaration that the sinner is restored to Gods favor, has its ground, not in the sinners personal charter or conduct, but solely in the obedience and righteousness of Christ, to Whom the sinner is united by faith. Thus Christs work is the procuring cause of our justification, in both its elements. As we are acquitted on account of Christs suffering of the penalty of the law, so on account of Christs obedience we receive the rewards of the law.3 The Reformers taught that all of mans works are stained by sin. Therefore is imposable for them to do anything pleasing to God. Only through faith in the atoning work of Christ can a person merit salvation. For Martin Luther sola fide became the supreme doctrine of Christianity. Luther even attempted to help Paul by adding the word "alone" to Romans 3:28: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." Luthers German translation read: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith alone apart from observing the law." When challenged on this point Luther responded: If your Papist makes much useless fuss about the word alone, tell him at once: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so," and says "Papist and donkey are one thing...For we do not want to be pupils and followers of the Papist, but their masters and judges...Therefore the word alone shall remain in my New Testament, and though all the pope-donkeys should get furious and foolish, they shall not take it out.4 Sola Fide was Luther's great discovery. The seeds of the doctrine had been planted two hundred years earlier by John Wyclif, but came into full bloom with Luther. But sola fide was not a rediscovery of an early Christian doctrine, but a completely new and novel concept. No early Church Father had ever even hinted at the doctrine. Luther believed that he was the only one that really understood Paul. I remember in seminary, my homiletics teaches once saying, "if you come up with an interpretation of Scripture that no one else in the history of Christianity has found, your probably wrong." Had Luther made a break through or a tragic mistake? Did Paul Teach Justification by Faith Alone? In the year 1515 in a monastery tower, the Augustinian monk Martin Luther, tortured by his feelings of guilt and unworthiness before God, read the words of Paul in Romans 1:17: For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

Luther wrote of that day: Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that "the just shall live by faith." Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through the doors into paradise.5 There is no doubt that this was a profound experience for Luther, but was his view of Paul correct? As an Evangelical one of my favorite proof texts for the faith alone view was Ephesians 2:8-9: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast. To me this was an open and shut case. It was not until I was doing a study on the book of James that I started to rethink my position. The whole thing revolved around the person of Abraham. Both Paul and James use Abraham as an example but come to seemingly different conclusions. Paul says: What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." (Romans 4:1-3) Then James says: Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (James 2:21-24) I had never questioned the faith alone doctrine, yet the only place in the Bible that the Holy Spirit chose to use the words "faith" and "alone" together was here in James where he says that justification is not by faith alone. I remember asking a preacher friend of mine about this verse in James. After confessing that he also had struggled with it for quite a while he said, "I dont know what it means, but I know what it doesn't mean. And it doesn't mean what it sounds like James is saying."

Martin Luther also had a problem reconciling James with his faith alone doctrine. It bothered him so much that he decided that the book of James didnt belong in the Bible, even removing it from his first German translation. But he didnt stop there, he railed against the epistle calling it "an epistle of straw" and even suggesting that it had been written by some evil Jew trying to undermine the faith of Christians. He says: We should throw the epistle of James out of the school, for it doesnt amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but had never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, "Wait a moment! Ill oppose them and urge works alone." This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what the apostles preached about. Besides, there is no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: "As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead." O Mary, Mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is!"6 James is so clear in what he says that I couldnt just ignore him. It occurred to me that the only solution the problem was to find out what Paul meant by "works" and what James meant by the term. To really understand what Paul means we need to expand our view just a little bit: But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: (Romans 3:21-4:4) In verse 21 we read, "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known,

to which the Law and the Prophets testify." The Apostle Paul struggled against a group know as the Judaizers. These Jews were teaching that in order to become a Christian the believer must first become a Jew, be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses. Paul argues that the Law is not binding on Christians because Christ has fulfilled the Law. Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 that, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." The point being that this was before Abraham was circumcised and a full four hundred years before the Law was given. The Jews that Paul was opposing believed that in following the Law one obligates God to justify them. This is the key to Pauls use of the term "works". He points out that Gods justification is a free gift, not because it has no value, but because it is of infinite value. God is a completely righteous and perfect God. In order to earn our justification we would have to follow the Law perfectly. Because we are imperfect all of our actions, no matter how well intended are imperfect. God cannot be obligated, if He could be then He would no longer be God. We are justified by the grace of God, as a free gift lavished on His children. Canon one of the Council of Trent makes this very clear: If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.7 The Catholic Church, though, rejects Luthers conception of faith. Faith is not just believing, but must be made evident by works as James points out: What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (James 2:14-17) All the warm feelings and good intentions in the world will not feed and clothe a person in need. Therefore faith if not born out in good works is of no real use. The Evangelical will object that to add anything to faith is to demise that faith. Yet Peter tells us: For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. (II Peter 1:5-7) What Did Jesus Teach?

In order to make Paul preach justification by faith alone it is necessary to isolate him from his Scriptural and historical context. Jesus is very clear on the matter: "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:21-23) Time and time again Jesus stresses obedience. He tell us, "If you love me, you will obey what I command" (John 14:15). Even though many Protestants say that Jesus "laid the groundwork" for Justification by faith alone in verses like John 5:24: I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. The tendency is to start with maybe this verse, John 3:16 and then jump right into Paul. Protestants for the most part ignore Jesus on the important issue of Justification. Why? Because a study of Jesus on the subject will lead to a Catholic view of justification. Just a couple examples of Our Lords teaching will bear this out. The Sermon on the Mount The Sermon on the mount is undoudtedly the most well know sermon of Jesus and is the only full-length sermon of His that was recorded. Matthew gives a great deal of space in his gospel to the Sermon and we can see that Matthew saw it as very important. What did Jesus teach in His sermon on the Mount? He starts out the nine blessings, and tells His hears that they are to be "salt and light". Then He says: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20) Notice that Jesus do not teach faith alone; in face He says that the "righteousness" (that is faithful obedience to God), must surpass the righteousness of the Pharisees. Jesus does not condemn the

Pharisees because that have a "works mentality", but that they obey the Law only outwardly, not have a true love and obedience in their hearts. They were doing just what Paul was preaching against, trying to obligate God. Verses 17-20 set the tone for all that is to follow in this great sermon. Jesus teaches not a slavish following of the Law, but a heart felt obedience toward God. Jesus and the Rich Young Man Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " `Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and `love your neighbor as yourself.' " "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. (Matthew 19:16-21) The young man asks Jesus, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" If Jesus was going to teach justification by faith alone, this was His opportunity. The Evangelical would answer, "You cant do any thing to get eternal life. Just believe that Jesus dies for you and for your sins and accept Him as your personal Savior." But what does Jesus say? "If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." Jesus tells the young man to obey God. The young man still presses on asking which commandments he should follow. Jesus strengthens His first answer, "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself." The young man answers that he has done all of this. Then Jesus tells him to sell all that he owned, give it to the poor and come and follow Him. If this man had been a modern Evangelical he would have said to Himself, "Now what Jesus really meant is that I should have an interior detachment from my riches and that I should follow Him in faith." In fact I have listened to and preacher sermons that interpreted Jesus words in just this way! But the young man took Jesus at his word and "went away sad, because he had great wealth." There is no hint of Luthers view of justification anywhere in this text. Dispensationalism Many times Protestants deal with Jesus teachings on works by not dealing with them. Main line Protestants usually claim that our Lords teachings on works are hypothetical. Most Evangelicals ascribe to dispensational theology. This doctrine teaches that salvation history is broken up into

seven distinct "ages" or "dispensations" and that God does not necessarily act in similar ways in the different dispensations. Dispensationalists handle Jesus teachings on works in one of two ways. Either they say that Jesus teachings apply to a future millennial age or that they apply to the age preceding the cross which is called the Age of Law. The latter view is the one that I held as an Evangelical. If I were asked about the seeming contradictions I would explain that Jesus taught before the cross, in the Age of Law. Therefore His teachings only applied to those who were under the Law. We now live after the cross in the Age of Grace. Although Jesus is the Lord and Savior and is certainly a good guide for moral behavior, His teaching was directed toward the Jews of His time. I saw Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles. His "faith alone" teachings apply to we who live in this new Age of Grace. Not only does the Bible not teach dispensationalist, but it completely negates the majority of Jesus teachings. Under this view, Jesus is limited to Savior and moral example, but it is Paul who teaches about justification and salvation. As we saw above, Paul can only be made to teach faith alone if he is divorced from the teachings of Jesus. Rather Paul expounds on the teachings of Jesus, he does not contradict them. Is Righteousness infused or Imputed? Protestants see the redemption of the sinner as a court room drama. Augustus Strong writes: By justification we mean that judicial act of God by which, on account of Christ, to whom the sinner is united by faith, he declares that sinner to be no longer exposed to the penalty of the law, but restored to his favor. Or, to give an alternative definition from which all metaphor is excluded: Justification is the reversal of Gods aptitude toward the sinner, because of the sinners new relation to Christ. God did condemn; now he acquits. He did repel; he now admits favor.8 There are several key words that we need to highlight in order to understand the Protestant doctrine of Justification. Strong says that the sinner is declared righteous in a judicial act of God on the account of the sinners faith in the sacrifice of Christ. This is Luthers snowy dunghill that we mentioned earlier. In Luthers day German farmers would pile their manure up in front of their houses. The size of this hill as a states symbol. It showed no only that they possessed enough livestock to produce the manure, but that also had sufficient croplands to require the volume of manure. Needless to say the whole land stunk in the summer time. Yet when winter came, the dunghills were covered with snow. Now they not only did not look like dunghills any more but they didnt smell like them either. Luther in his scrupulouity saw this as the perfect picture of the justified sinner, who is nothing more than a dunghill. But Christ covers the hill with His righteousness. God the Father, now not seeing the great pile of manure, but the snow, declares as a judicial act the entire pile to be clean. Although, to be fair, many Protestants have tried to back away from this analogy, it none the less is an accrete picture, albeit crude, of the doctrine of the imputation of Christs righteousness to the sinner.

Yet there is a disturbing "dark side" to this doctrine of imputation, it is what I call negative imputation. On the cross Christ not only imputes His righteousness to the sinner, but the sins of the world are imputed to Christ, Who suffers and dies for them. Luther writes: All the prophets well foresaw in the Spirit, that Christ, by imputation, would become the greatest sinner upon the face of the earth, and a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world; would be no more considered an innocent person and without sin; or the Son of God in glory, but a notorious sinner, and so be for awhile forsaken (Psalm 8), and have lying upon his neck the sins of all mankind; the sins of St. Paul, who was a blasphemer of God, and a persecutor of his church; St. Peters sins, that denied Christ; Davids sins who was an adulterer and a murderer, through whom the name of the Lord among the heathen was blasphemed.9 Luther taught that on the cross Jesus was so covered by the blackness of sin that God the Father could not look upon Him. This is a theme that I would return to in sermons again and again when I was an Evangelical minister. I would say that , "for the first time in His life when Jesus looked up He could not see the Father. For the first time in His life God the Father turned His back on the Son, because of the sin that was placed on Him. And in His loneliness ,fear and pain Jesus cries out, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46). This is all very emotional and "preaches well" until we stop and think of the implications of this theology. Do we really man to say that on the cross our dear Lord became every Hitler, every Nero, every Manson, every rapist and child molester? GOD FORBID! Jesus bore the punishment for our sins, but not the guilt. Isaiah says: But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5-6) Read Isaiahs words very carefully. Jesus was pierced "for" or "because of" our transgressions, He was crushed "for" or "because of" our iniquities, and the "punishment" that brought us peace was upon Him, and the "Lord laid on Him our iniquity" This word "iniquity" can be confusing. The Hebrew word means not sin but the punishment for sin. This same word is used when Cain says to God, "My punishment is more than I can bear." in Genesis 4:13. The word also came to signify actual sins. What makes Isaiah confusing here is that he uses the word in two different ways in the same context. First he says that Jesus was crushed for our iniquities. meaning sins deserving divine punishment. Then He says that the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Here the word does not mean sin but punishment fro sin. We know this because Isaiah changes from the plural

iniquities to the singular iniquity. This is further demonstrated by the fact that the word translated "punishment" is the exact same word that is also translated "iniquity". There is also a Protestant misunderstanding of Paul when he says, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."(II Corthians 5:21). Here as with Isaiah Paul is using the phrase "to be sin for us" to mean the punishment and not the guilt of sin. This theology of imputed sinfulness as leas some popular tela-eveganelists to claim that after His death, Jesus went to hell and suffered its torments for three days. Yet the Bible is clear that Jesus, because He is God is pure righteous clean and holy, before, on and after the cross. This justification of Christ is to the Protestant mind causes no intrinsic change in the believer. Again we turn to Augustus Strong: Justification, as thus defined, is therefore a declarative act, as disguised from an efficient act; an act of God external to the sinner, as distinguished from an act within the sinners nature and changing that nature; a judicial act, as distinguished from a sovereign act; an act based upon and logically presupposing the sinners union with Christ, as distinguished from an act which causes and is followed by union with Christ.10 The sinner is declared righteous even though he is not. At this point we need to note that in Protestant theology there is a distinction made between justification and sanctification. Justification is a one time event where by God declares the sinner righteous on the account of Christ. Sanctification, on the other hand is seen as an on going work of the Holy Spirit where the sinner becomes in reality what he had already been declared to be judicially. Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words explain that sanctification: ...is not vicarious, i.e., it cannot be transferred or imputed, it is an individual possession, built up, little by little, as the result of obedience to the Word of God, and following the example of Christ.11 This wall of separation between justification and sanctification cannot be adequately defended from Scripture, but it is necessary to preserve the doctrines of imputed justification and Sola fide. Catholic theology is opposed to Protestant theology in that it teaches that the repentant sinner is infused by the righteousness of Christ. Not by good works alone, but by faith demonstration its self in obedient love of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ not only died to made restitution to God the Father for our sins, but god farther filling or infusing us with His righteousness. In the Catholic view there is no separation between sanctification and justification. It is the blood of Christ that justifies and that same blood that sanctifies. Hebrews tells us:

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Hebrews 9:11-14) Here justification and sanctification are present as one in the same. No word is here about imputation, but instead it speaks of Christ, Who by His own blood presents Himself as a perfect and eternal sacrifice to the Father. A sacrifice which can cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man," justification entails the sanctification of his whole being. (CCC 1995)12 Justification in Catholic theology is not a one-time event, but an ongoing process. This is not a theology of works but of obedience. Paul tells us: But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 3:7-14) Yes righteousness is by faith, but faith that is "straining toward what is ahead." This righteousness, this justification before God is not something that is not imputed but infused into the soul of the believer. Again we here Paul speaking to the Philippians: And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until

the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ--to the glory and praise of God. (Philippians 1:9-11) Paul says that we are "filled" with the fruit of righteousness. The Catholic view sees Justification as a real and substantial change in the soul. It is not something that we gain or merit on our own. It is given to us, a precious gift wrought in the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. This justification is planed as a see in our soul at Baptism. Which is not just an "outward observance of an inward reality" as the Evangelicals say, but is a sacrament. Through the waters of Baptism the soul is infused with the righteousness of Christ. But we cant stop there. We have a responsibility to water and nurture that "seed" planted in us at Baptism. This is way the Church has always taught the necessity of works. Listen to Paul: But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism. (Romans 2:5-11) Paul here is pointing out that both the Jew and the Gentile are in equal standing before God. Far from teaching the "faith alone" view, Paul cites Psalm 62:12 that God will give to each person "according to what he has done." The Evangelical objects, "yes, but what we have done does only and can only merit us hell." But Paul continues, "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." Now if the imputed righteousness view were correct it would be imposable for Paul to say this. If we are only "covered" with the righteousness of Christ, then the Protestants are quite rites in saying that we can do nothing to please God. But if it is , as Paul says. " Christ in you, the hope of glory." (Colssians 1:27), then every good work that we do is in fact Christ working. It is Christ in us giving glory and honor and praise to the Father through our human vessels. A Trail or an Adoption? As stated the Protestant view of Justification is a legal process in which God declares the sinner to be righteous on the merits of Christ. Most certainly there are legal aspects to the Biblical view of justification, but the legal is only a part. Our justification in Christ must be seen in view of the

covenant that He made with us. At the Last Supper Jesus said, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matthew 26:27b-29). Jesus words echoed the words of Moses in Exodus 24:8: Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." The blood that Moses offered instated the Old Covenant, in using Moses words Jesus was making it clear that His New Covenant was like that of Moses only His is superior and everlasting. A covenant is more than just a legal contract, but establishes a family relationship. We see this in our modern laws. When we buy something or enter into a legal agreement we sign a contract. The signature on the contract binds both parties to do the things spelled out in the contract. But when we get married, we do not enter into a contract but a covenant. Marriage is not only a legal relationship, but also a family relationship. The man and woman, when pronounced husband and wife become family, in the eyes of the state and God. So in the New Covenant in Christs blood we become family, children of God. Therefore Paul tells us: Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of son ship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. (Romans 8:12-17) Notice what Paul says, "we have an obligation". Now notice what Paul does not say. He does not say anything about faith. He speaks in familial terms. We are now children of God, even "co-heirs with Christ". We call out to God, "Abba, Father". By the Blood of the New Covenant we have become children of God in a literal way. But as with any family, we have certain "obligations" as family members. The is clearly seen in the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-32). Jesus tells the story of a man with two sons. The younger son, fed up with his fathers rules demands his inheritance from his father and leaves home. He goes into another country where he

squanders his wealth. After a while of eating and sleeping with the pigs Jesus says: When he came to his senses, he said, `How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' So he got up and went to his father. (Luke 15:17-20)

This statement by the younger son is very important to notice. He sees that rejoining the family involves an obligation. If fact the whole parable is about family obligation. The young man leaves because he does not like the obligation to follow the rules of the father. At the end of the parable, the older brother gets angry at the Fathers acceptance of the younger into the family: Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. "Your brother has come," he replied, "and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.." The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, "Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!" (Luke 15:25-30) The older son points out that he has followed the family obligation faithfully and he is angry because the father never threw him a party. Certainly, Jesus wants us to see the love of God in this story, but He also wants us to see our responsibility as family and children of God. The obligation to obey the Father. This is the bedrock of the Catholic theology of justification. The Father was happy with the younger son why? Because of his faith alone? No. Because he came back to him in obedient love. As members of Gods family we are under a family obligation to obey the Father. He in turn rewards us for our good works of obedience. Not as an employer making payment for work done. But as a loving Father who lavishes His gifts on His children, saying. "This is My child who was dead and is alive again, who was lost and now is found" (Luke 15:32). Conclusion We have seen that the Protestant theology of Justification by faith alone cannot be supported when the full witness of Scripture is considered. We have also seen that far from teaching a "theology of works", the Catholic Church has always affirmed that salvation is only by the grace of God. But justification involved our good works. These works have value only because that are

an obedient response to the love of God. Footnotes 1 Ungers Bible Dictionary, Merrill F. Unger; Moody Press; page 624 2 Our Sunday Visitors Catholic Encyclopedia, Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas Ph.D., S.T.D. editor; Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division; Page 578. 3 Systematic Theology, Augustus Hopkins Strong, The Judson Press; Page 858. 4 Cited in Not by Faith Alone, Robert A. Sungenis, Queenship Publishing Co. Page526-527. 5 Church History in Plain Language, Bruce L. Shelley; Word Publishing; Page256. 6 Cited in Not by Faith Alone, Robert A. Sungenis, Queenship Publishing Co. Page524. 7 Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, H.J. Schroeder, Herder Book Co.: as reproduced in A Reformation Debate; John Calvin and Jacopo Sadoleto; John C. Olin Editor; Baker Book House; page 131. 8 Systematic Theology, Augustus Hopkins Strong, The Judson Press; Page 849. 9 Martin Luther, Table Talk; THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARY COLLECTIONS, Ages Software; Page 94 10 Systematic Theology, Augustus Hopkins Strong, The Judson Press; Page 849. 11 Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words,W.E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger and William White, jr. editors; Thomas Nelson Publishers; Page 545. 12 Catechism of the Catholic Church, An Image Book, Doubleday, Page 537

Titus 3:4-7 When the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, He saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life

SANCTIFYING GRACE

From Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm Sanctifying Grace Grace (gratia, Charis), in general, is a supernatural gift of God to intellectual creatures (men, angels) for their eternal salvation, whether the latter be furthered and attained through salutary acts or a state of holiness. Eternal salvation itself consists in heavenly bliss resulting from the intuitive knowledge of the Triune God, who to the one not endowed with grace "inhabiteth light inaccessible" (I Tim., vi, 16). Christian grace is a fundamental idea of the Christian religion, the pillar on which, by a special ordination of God, the majestic edifice of Christianity rests in its entirety. Among the three fundamental ideas -- sin, redemption, and grace -- grace plays the part of the means, indispensable and Divinely ordained, to effect the redemption from sin through Christ and to lead men to their eternal destiny in heaven. Before the Council of Trent, the Schoolmen seldom used the term gratia actualis, preferring auxilium speciale, motio divina, and similar designations; nor did they formally distinguish actual grace from sanctifying grace. But, in consequence of modern controversies regarding grace, it has become usual and necessary in theology to draw a sharper distinction between the transient help to act (actual grace) and the permanent state of grace (sanctifying grace). For this reason we adopt this distinction as our principle of division in our exposition of the Catholic doctrine. In this article, we shall treat only of sanctifying grace. (See also ACTUAL GRACE.) Santifying grace Since the end and aim of all efficacious grace is directed to the production of sanctifying grace where it does not already exist, or to retain and increase it where it is already present, its excellence, dignity, and importance become immediately apparent; for holiness and the sonship of God depend solely upon the possession of sanctifying grace, wherefore it is frequently called simply grace without any qualifying word to accompany it as, for instance, in the phrases "to live in grace" or "to fall from grace". All pertinent questions group themselves around three points of view from which the subject may be considered: I. The preparation for sanctifying grace, or the process of justification.

II. The nature of sanctifying grace. III. The characteristics of sanctifying grace. I. JUSTIFICATION: THE PREPARATION FOR SANCTIFYING GRACE (For an exhaustive treatment of justification, see the article JUSTIFICATION). The word justification (justificatio, from justum facere) derives its name from justice (justitia), by which is not merely meant the cardinal virtue in the sense of a contant purpose to respect the rights of others (suum cuique), nor is the term taken in the concept of all those virtues which go to make up the moral law, but connotes, especially, the whole inner relation of man to God as to his supernatural end. Every adult soul stained either with original sin or with actual mortal sin (children are of course excepted) must, in order to arrive at the state of justification, pass through a short or long process of justification, which may be likened to the gradual development of the child in its mother's womb. This development attains its fullness in the birth of the child, accompanied by the anguish and suffering with which this birth is invariably attended; our rebirth in God is likewise preceded by great spiritual sufferings of fear and contrition. In the process of justification we must distinguish two periods: first, the preparatory acts or dispositions (faith, fear, hope, etc.); then the last, decisive moment of the transformation of the sinner from the state of sin to that of justification or sanctifying grace, which may be called the active justification (actus justificationis) with this the real process comes to an end, and the state of habitual holiness and sonship of God begins. Touching both of these periods there has existed, and still exists, in part, a great conflict of opinion between Catholicism and Protestantism. This conflict may be reduced to four differences of teaching. By a justifying faith the Church understands qualitatively the theoretical faith in the truths of Revelation, and demands over and above this faith other acts of preparation for justification. Protestantism, on the other hand, reduces the process of justification to merely a fiduciary faith; and maintains that this faith, exclusive even of good works, is all-sufficient for justification, laying great stress upon the scriptural statement sola fides justificat. The Church teaches that justification consists of an actual obliteration of sin and an interior sanctification. Protestantism, on the other hand, makes of the forgiveness of sin merely a concealment of it, so to speak; and of the sanctification a forensic declaration of justification, or an external imputation of the justice of Christ. In the presentation of the process of justification, we will everywhere note this fourfold confessional conflict. A. The Fiduciary Faith of the Protestants The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. vi, and can. xii) decrees that not the fiduciary faith, but a real mental act of faith, consisting of a firm belief in all revealed truths makes up the faith of justification and the "beginning, foundation, and source" (loc. cit., cap. viii) of justification. What did the Reformers with Luther understand by fiduciary faith? They understood thereby not the

first or fundamental deposition or preparation for the (active) justification, but merely the spiritual grasp (instrumentum) with which we seize and lay hold of the external justice of Christ and with it, as with a mantle of grace, cover our sins (which still continue to exist interiorly) in the infallible, certain belief (fiducia) that God, for the sake of Christ, will no longer hold our sin against us. Hereby the seat of justifying faith is transferred from the intellect to the will; and faith itself, in as far as it still abides in the intellect, is converted into a certain belief in one's own justification. The main question is: "Is this conception Biblical?" Murray (De gratia, disp. x, n. 18, Dublin, 1877) states in his statistics that the word fides (pistis) occurs eighty times in the Epistle to the Romans and in the synoptic Gospels, and in only six of these can it be construed to mean fiducia. But neither here nor anywhere else does it ever mean the conviction of, or belief in, one's own justification, or the Lutheran fiduciary faith. Even in the leading text (Rom., iv, 5) the justifying faith of St. Paul is identical with the mental act of faith or belief in Divine truth; for Abraham was justified not by faith in his own justification, but by faith in the truth of the Divine promise that he would be the "father of many nations" (cf. Rom., iv, 9 sqq.). In strict accord with this is the Pauline teaching that the faith of justification, which we must profess "with heart and mouth", is identical with the mental act of faith in the Resurrection of Christ, the central dogma of Christianity (Rom., x, 9 sq.) and that the minimum expressly necessary for justification is contained in the two dogmas: the existence of God, and the doctrine of eternal reward (Heb., xi, 6). The Redeemer Himself made belief in the teaching of the gospel a necessary condition for salvation, when he solemnly commanded the Apostles to preach the Gospel to the whole world (Mark, xvi, 15). St. John the Evangelist declares his Gospel has been written for the purpose of exciting belief in the Divine Sonship of Christ, and links to this faith the possession of eternal life (John, xx, 31). Such was the mind of the Chritian Church from the beginning. To say nothing of the testimony of the Fathers (cf. Bellarmine, De justific., I, 9), Saint Fulgentius, a disciple of St. Augustine, in his precious booklet, "De vera fide ad Petrum", does not understand by true faith a fiduciary faith, but the firm belief in all the truths contained in the Apostles' Creed, and he calls this faith the "Foundation of all good things", and the "Beginning of human salvation" (loc. cit., Prolog.). The practice of the Church in the earliest ages, as shown by the ancient custom, going back to Apostolic times, of giving the catechumens (katechoumenoi from katechein, viva voce instruere) a verbal instruction in the articles of faith and of directing them, shortly before baptism, to make a public recitation of the Apostles' Creed, strengthens this view. After this they were called not fiduciales but fideles, in contra-distinction to infidels and haeretici (from aireisthai, to select, to proceed eclectically) who rejected Revelation as a whole or in part. In answer to the theological question: How many truths of faith must one expressly (fide explicita) believe under command (necessitate praecepti)? theologians say that an ordinary Catholic must expressly know and believe the most important dogmas and the truths of the moral law, for instance, the Apostles' Creed, the Decalogue, the six precepts of the Church, the Seven Sacraments, the Our Father. Greater things are, of course, expected from the educated, especially from catechists, confessors, preachers wherefore upon these the study of theology rests as an obligation. If the question be put: In how many truths as a means (necessitate medii) must one believe to be saved? many catechists answer Six things: God's existence; an eternal reward; the

Trinity; the Incarnation; the immortality of the soul; the necessity of Grace. But according to St. Paul (Heb., xi, 6) we can only be certain of the necessity of the first two dogmas, while the belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation could not of course be exacted from ante-Christian Judaism or from Paganism. Then, too, belief in the Trinity may be implicitly included in the dogma of God's existence, and belief in the Incarnation in the dogma of the Divine providence, just as the immortality of the soul is implicitly included in the dogma of an eternal reward. However, there arises for any one baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, and entering thus the Church of Christ, the necessity of making an act of explicit faith (fides explicita). This necessity (necessitas medii) arises per accidens, and is suspended only by a Divine dispention in cases of extreme necessity, where such an act of faith is either physically or morally impossible, as in the case of pagans or those dying in a state of unconsciousness. For further matter on this point see Pohle, "Lehrbuch der Dogmatik", 4th ed., II, 488 sqq. (Paderborn, 1909). B. The "Sola Fides" Doctrine of the Protestants The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. ix) decrees that over and above the faith which formally dwells in the intellect, other acts of predisposition, arising from the will, such as fear, hope, love, contrition, and good resolution (loc. cit., cap. vi), are necessary for the reception of the grace of justification. This definition was made by the council as against the second fundamental error of Protestantism, namely that "faith alone justifies" (sola fides justificat). Martin Luther stands as the originator of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, for he hoped that in this way he might be able to calm his own conscience, which was in a state of great perturbation, and consequently he took refuge behind the assertion that the necessity of good works over and above mere faith was altogether a pharisaical supposition. Manifestly this did not bring him the peace and comfort for which he had hoped, and at least it brought no conviction to his mind; for many times, in a spirit of honesty and sheer good nature, he applauded good works, but recognized them only as necessary concomitants, not as efficient dispositions, for justification. This was also the tenor of Calvin's interpretation (Institute, III, 11, 19). Luther was surprised to find himself by his unprecedented doctrine in direct contradiction to the Bible, therefore he rejected the Epistle of St. James as "one of straw" and into the text of St. Paul to the Romans (iii, 28) he boldly inserted the word alone. This falsification of the Bible was certainly not done in the spirit of the Apostle's teaching, for nowhere does St. Paul teach that faith alone (without charity) will bring justification, even though we should accept as also Pauline the text given in a different context, that supernatural faith alone justifies but the fruitless works of the Jewish Law do not. In this statement St. Paul emphasizes the fact that grace is purely gratuitous; that no merely natural good works can merit grace; but he does not state that no other acts in their nature and purport predisposing are necessary for justification over and above the requisite faith. Any other construction of the above passage would be violent and incorrect. If Luther's interpretation were allowed to stand, then St. Paul would come into direct contradiction not only with St. James (ii,

24 sqq.), but also with himself; for, except St. John, the favourite Apostle, he is the most outspoken of all Apostles in proclaiming the necessity and excellence of charity over faith in the matter of justification (cf. I Cor., xiii, l sqq.). Whenever faith justifies it is not faith alone, but faith made operative and replenished by charity (cf. Gal., v 6, "fides, quae per caritatem operatur"). In the painest language the Apostle St. James says this: "ex operibus justificatur homo, et non ex fide tantum" (James, ii, 24); and here, by works, he does not understand the pagan good works to which St. Paul refers in the Epistle to the Romans, or the works done in fulfilment of the Jewish Law, but the-works of salvation made possible by the operation of supernatural grace, which was recognized by St. Augustine (lib. LXXXIII, Q. lxxvi n. 2). In conformity with this interpretation and with this only is the tenor of the Scriptural doctrine, namely, that over and above faith other acts are necessary for justification, such as fear (Ecclus., i, 28), and hope (Rom., viii, 24), charity (Luke, vii, 47), penance with contrition (Luke, xiii, 3; Acts, ii, 38; iii, 19), almsgiving (Dan., iv, 24; Tob., xii, 9). Without charity and the works of charity faith is dead. Faith receives life only from and through charity (James, ii, 26). Only to dead faith (fides informis) is the doctrine applied: "Faith alone does not justify". On the other hand, faith informed by charity (fides formata) has the power of justification. St. Augustine (De Trinit., XV, 18) expresses it pithily thus: "Sine caritate quippe fides potest quidem esse, sed non et prodesse." Hence we see that from the very beginning the Church has taught that not only faith but that a sincere conversion of heart effected by charity and contrition is also requisite for justification--witness the regular method of administering baptism and the discipline of penance in the early Church. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. viii) has, in the light of Revelation, assigned to faith the only correct status in the process of justification, inasmuch as the council, by declaring it to be the "beginning, the foundation, and the root", has placed faith at the very front in the whole process. Faith is the beginning of salvation, because no one can be converted to God unless he recognize Him as his supernatural end and aim, just as a mariner without an objective and without a compass wanders aimlessly over the sea at the mercy of wind and wave. Faith is not only the initiatory act of justification, but the foundation as well, because upon it all the other predisposing acts rest securely, not in geometric regularity or inert as the stones of a building rest upon a foundation, but organically and imbued with life as the branches and blossoms spring from a root or stem. Thus there is preserved to faith in the Catholic system its fundamental and co-ordinating significance in the matter of justification. A masterly, psychological description of the whole process of justification, which even Ad. Harnack styles "a magnificent work of art", will be found in the famous cap. vi, "Disponuntur" (Denzinger, n. 798). According to this the process of justification follows a regular order of progression in four stages: from faith to fear, from fear to hope, from hope to incipient charity, from incipient charity to contrition with purpose of amendment. If the contrition be perfect (contritio caritate perfecta), then active justification results, that is, the soul is immediately placed in the state of grace even before the reception of the sacrament of baptism or penance, though not without the desire for the sacrament (votum sacramenti). If, on the other hand, the contrition be only an imperfect one (attritio), then the sanctifying grace can only be imparted by the actual reception of the sacrament (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cc. iv and xiv). The Council of Trent had no intention, however, of making

the sequence of the various stages in the process of justification, given above, inflexible; nor of making any one of the stages indispensable. Since a real conversion is inconceivable without faith and contrition, we naturally place faith at the beginning and contrition at the end of the process. In exceptional cases, however, for example in sudden conversions, it is quite possible for the sinner to overlap the intervening stages between faith and charity, in which case fear, hope, and contrition are virtually included in charity. The "justification by faith alone" theory was by Luther styled the article of the standing and falling church (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae), and by his followers was regarded as the material principle of Protestantism, just as the sufficiency of the Bible without tradition was considered its formal principle. Both of these principles are un-Biblical and are not accepted anywhere to-day in their original severity, save only in the very small circle of orthodox Lutherans. The Lutheran Church of Scandinavia has, according to the Swedish theologian Krogh-Tonningh, experienced a silent reformation which in the lapse of the several centuries has gradually brought it back to the Catholic view of justification, which view alone can be supported by Revelation and Christian experience (cf. Dorner, "Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie", 361 sqq., Munich, 1867; Mohler, "Symbolik", 16, Mainz, 1890; "Realencyk. fur prot. Theol.", s.v. "Rechtfertigung"). C. The Protestant Theory of Non-Imputation Embarrassed by the fatal notion that original sin wrought in man an utter destruction extending even to the annihilation of all moral freedom of election, and that it continues its existence even in the just man as sin in the shade of an ineradicable concupiscence, Martin Luther and Calvin taught very logically that a sinner is justified by fiduciary faith, in such a way, however, that sin is not absolutely removed or wiped out, but merely covered up or not held against the sinner. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, however, in active justification an actual and real forgiveness of sins takes place so that the sin is really removed from the soul, not only original sin by baptism but also mortal sin by the sacrament of penance (Trent, Sess. V, can. v; Sess. VI, cap. xiv; Sess. XIV, cap. ii). This view is entirely consonant with the teaching of Holy Scripture, for the Biblical expressions: "blotting out" as applied to sin (Ps., 1, 3; Is., xliii, 25; xliv, 22; Acts, iii, 19), "exhausting" (Heb., ix, 28), "taking away" [II Kings, xii, 13; I Par., xxi, 8; Mich., vii, 18; Ps. x (Heb.), 15; cii, 12], cannot be reconciled with the idea of a mere covering up of sin which is supposed to continue its existence in a covert manner. Other Biblical expressions are just as irreconcilable with this Lutheran idea, for instance, the expression of "cleansing" and "washing away" the mire of sin (Ps., 1, 4, 9; Is., i, 18; Ezech., xxxvi, 25; I Cor., vi 11; Apoc., i, 5), that of coming "from death to life" (Col. ii., 13; I John, iii, 14); the removal from darkness to light (Eph., v, 9). Especially these latter expressions are significant, because they characterize the justification as a movement from one thing to another which is directly contrary or opposed to the thing from which the movement is made. The opposites, black and white, night and day,

darkness and light, life and death, have this peculiarity, that the presence of one means the extinction of its opposite. Just as the sun dispels all darkness, so does the advent of justifying grace drive away sin, which ceases from that on to have an existence at least in the ethical order of things, though in the knowledge of God it may have a shadowy kind of existence as something which once was, but has ceased to be. It becomes intelligible, therefore, that in him who is justified, though concupiscence remain, there is "no condemnation" (Rom., viii, l); and why, according to James (i, 14 sqq.), concupiscence as such is really no sin; and it is apparent that St. Paul (Rom., vii, 17) is speaking only figuratively when he calls concupiscence sin, because it springs from sin and brings sin in its train. Where in the Bible the expressions "covering up" and "not imputing" sin occur, as for instance in Ps. xxxi, 1 sq., they must be interpreted in accordance with the Divine perfections, for it is repugnant that God should declare any one free from sin to whom sin is still actually cleaving. It is one of God's attributes always to substantiate His declarations; if He covers sin and does not impute it, this can only be effected by an utter extinction or blotting out of the sin. Tradition also has always taught this view of the forgiveness of sins. (See Denifle, "Die abendlndischen Schriftausleger bis Luther uber justitia Dei and justificatio", Mainz, 1905) 4. The Protestant Theory of Imputation Calvin rested his theory with the negative moment, holding that justification ends with the mere forgiveness of sin, in the sense of not imputing the sin; but other Reformers (Luther and Melanchthon) demanded a positive moment as well, concerning the nature of which there was a very pronounced disagreement. At the time of Osiander (d. 1552) there were from fourteen to twenty opinions on the matter, each differing from every other; but they had this in common that they all denied the interior holiness and the inherent justification of the Catholic idea of the process. Among the adherents of the Augsburg Confession the following view was rather generally accepted: The person to be justified seizes by means of the fiduciary faith the exterior justice of Christ, and therewith covers his sins; this exterior justice is imputed to him as if it were his own, and he stands before God as having an outward justification, but in his inner self he remains the same sinner as of old. This exterior, forensic declaration of justification was received with great acclaim by the frenzied, fanatical masses of that time, and was given wide and vociferous expression in the cry: "Justitia Christi extra nos". The Catholic idea maintains that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ, but in a real, interior sanctification effected by grace, which abounds in the soul and makes it permanently holy before God (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii; can. xi). Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis), just as a philosopher by his own inherent learning becomes a scholar, not, however, by any exterior imputation of the wisdom of God (Trent, Sess. VI, can. x). To this idea of inherent holiness which theologians call sanctifying grace are we safely conducted by the words of Holy Writ.

To prove this we may remark that the word justificare (Gr. dikaioun) in the Bible may have a fourfold meaning: * The forensic declaration of justice by a tribunal or court (cf. Is., v, 23; Prov., xvii, 15). * The interior growth in holiness (Apoc., xxii, 11). * As a substantive, justificatio, the external law (Ps. cxviii, 8, and elsewhere). * The inner, immanent sanctification of the sinner. Only this last meaning can be intended where there is mention of passing to a new life (Eph., ii, 5; Col., ii, 13; I John, iii, 14); renovation in spirit (Eph., iv, 23 sq.); supernatural likeness to God (Rom., viii, 29; II Cor., iii, 18; II Pet., i, 4) a new creation (II Cor., v, 17; Gal., vi, 15); rebirth in God (John, iii, 5; Tit., iii, 5; James, i, 18), etc., all of which designations not only imply a setting aside of sin, but express as well a permanent state of holiness. All of these terms express not an aid to action, but rather a form of being; and this appears also from the fact that the grace of justification is described as being "poured forth in our hearts" (Rom., v, 5); as "the spirit of adoption of sons" of God (Rom., viii, 15); as the "spirit, born of the spirit" (John, iii, 6); making us "conformable to the image of the Son" (Rom., viii, 28); as a participation in the Divine nature (II Pet., i, 4); the abiding seed in us (I John, iii, 9), and so on. As regards the tradition of the Church, even Harnack admits that St. Augustine faithfully reproduces the teaching of St. Paul. Hence the Council of Trent need not go back to St. Paul, but only to St. Augustine, for the purpose of demonstrating that the Protestant theory of imputation is at once against St. Paul and St. Augustine. Moreover, this theory must be rejected as not being in accordance with reason. For in a man who is at once sinful and just, half holy and half unholy, we cannot possibly recognize a masterpiece of God's omnipotence, but only a wretched caricature, the deformity of which is exaggerated all the more by the violent introduction of the justice of Christ. The logical consequences which follow from this system, and which have been deduced by the Reformers themselves, are indeed appalling to Catholics. It would follow that, since the justice of Christ is always and ever the same, every person justified, from the ordinary everyday person to the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God, would possess precisely the same justification and would have, in degree and kind, the same holiness and justice. This deduction was expressly made by Luther. Can any man of sound mind accept it? If this be so, then the justification of children by baptism is impossible, for, not having come to the age of reason, they cannot have the fiduciary faith wherewith they must seize the justice of Christ to cover up their original sin. Very logically, therefore, the Anabaptists, Mennonites, and Baptists reject the validity of infant baptism. It would likewise follow that the justification acquired by faith alone could be forfeited only by infidelity, a most awful consequence which Luther (De Wette, II, 37) clothed in the following words, though he could hardly have meant them seriously: "Pecca fortiter et crede fortius et nihil nocebunt centum homicidia et mille stupra." Luckily this inexorable logic falls powerless against the decency and good morals of the Lutherans of our time, and is, therefore, harmless now, though it was not so at the time of the Peasants' War in the Reformation.

The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. vii) defined that the inherent justice is not only the formal cause of justification, but as well the only formal cause (unica formalis causa); this was done as against the heretical teaching of the Reformer Bucer (d. 1551), who held that the inherent justice must be supplemented by the imputed justice of Christ. A further object of this decree was to check the Catholic theologian Albert Pighius and others, who seemed to doubt that the inner justice could be ample for justification without being supplemented by another favour of God (favor Dei externus) (cf. Pallavacini, Hist. Conc. Trident., VIII, 11, 12). This decree was well-founded, for the nature and operation of justification are determined by the infusion of sanctifying grace. In other words without the aid of other factors, sanctifying grace in itself possesses the power to effect the destruction of sin and the interior sanctification of the soul to be justified. For since sin and grace are diametrically opposed to each other, the mere advent of grace is sufficient to drive sin away; and thus grace, in its positive operations, immediately brings about holiness, kinship of God, and a renovation of spirit, etc. From this it follows that in the present process of justification, the remission of sin, both original and mortal, is linked to the infusion of sanctifying grace as a conditio sine qua non, and therefore a remission of sin without a simultaneous interior sanctification is theologically impossible. As to the interesting controversy whether the incompatibility of grace and sin rests on merely moral, or physical, or metaphysical contrariety, refer to Pohle ("Lehrbuch der Dogmatik", II 511 sqq., Paderborn, 1909); Scheeben ("Die Myst. des Christentums", 543 sqq., Freiburg, 1898). II. THE NATURE OF SANCTIFYING GRACE The real nature of sanctifying grace is, by reason of its direct invisibility, veiled in mystery, so that we can learn its nature better by a study of its formal operations in the soul than by a study of the grace itself. Indissolubly linked to the nature of this grace and to its formal operations are other manifestations of grace which are referable not to any intrinsic necessity but to the goodness of God; accordingly three questions present themselves for consideration: (a) The inner nature of sanctifying grace. (b) Its formal operations. (c) Its supernatural retinue. A. The Inner Nature 1. As we have seen that sanctifying grace designates a grace producing a permanent condition, it follows that it must not be confounded with a particular actual grace nor with a series of actual graces, as some ante-Tridentine theologians seem to have held. This view is confirmed by the fact that the grace imparted to children in baptism does not differ essentially from the sanctifying grace imparted to adults, an opinion which was not considered as altogether certain under Pope Innocent III (1201), was regarded as having a high degree of probability by Pope Clement V (1311), and was defined as certain by the Council of Trent (Sess. V, can. iii-v). Baptized infants

cannot be justified by the use of actual grace, but only by a grace which effects or produces a certain condition in the recipient. Is this grace of condition or state, as Peter Lombard (Sent., I, dist. xvii, 18) held, identical with the Holy Spirit, whom we may call the permanent, uncreated grace (gratia increata)? It is quite impossible. For the person of the Holy Ghost cannot be poured out into our hearts (Rom., v, 5), nor does it cleave to the soul as inherent justice (Trent, sess. VI, can. xi), nor can it be increased by good works (loc. cit., can. xxiv), and all this is apart from the fact that the justifying grace in Holy Writ is expressly termed a "gift [or grace] of the Holy Ghost" (Acts, ii, 38; x, 45), and as the abiding seed of God (I John, iii, 9). From this it follows that the grace must be as distinct from the Holy Ghost as the gift from the giver and the seed from the sower; consequently the Holy Spirit is our holiness, not by the holiness by which He Himself is holy, but by that holiness by which He makes us holy. He is not, therefore, the causa formalis, but merely the causa efficiens, of our holiness. Moreover, sanctifying grace as an active reality, and not a merely external relation, must be philosophically either substance or accident. Now, it is certainty not a substance which exists by itself, or apart from the soul, therefore it is a physical accident inhering in the soul, so that the soul becomes the subject in which grace inheres; but such an accident is in metaphysics called quality (qualitas, poiotes) therefore sanctifying grace may be philosophically termed a "permanent, supernatural quality of the soul", or, as the Roman Catechism (P. II, cap. ii, de bap., n. 50) says "divina qualitas in anima inhaerens". 2. Sanctifying grace cannot be termed a habit (habitus) with the same precision as it is called a quality. Metaphysicians enumerate four kinds of quality: * habit and disposition; * power and want of power; * passion and passible quality, for example, to blush, pale with wrath; * form and figure (cf. Aristotle, Categ. VI). Manifestly sanctifying grace must be placed in the first of these four classes, namely habit or disposition; but as dispositions are fleeting things, and habit has a permanency theologians agree that sanctifying grace is undoubtedly a habit, hence the name: Habitual Grace (gratia habitualis). Habitus is subdivided into habitus entitativus and habitus operativus. A habitus entitativus is a quality or condition added to a substance by which condition or quality the substance is found permanently good or bad, for instance: sickness or health, beauty, deformity, etc. Habitus operativus is a disposition to produce certain operations or acts, for instance, moderation or extravagance; this habitus is called either virtue or vice just as the soul is inclined thereby to a moral good or to a moral evil. Now, since sanctifying grace does not of itself impart any such readiness, celerity, or facility in action, we must consider it primarily as a habitus entitativus, not as a habitus operativus. Therefore, since the popular concept of habitus, which usually designates a readiness, does not accurately express the idea of sanctifying grace, another term is employed,

i.e. a quality after the manner of a habit (qualitas per modum habitus), and this term is applied with Bellarmine (De grat. et lib. arbit., I, iii). Grace, however, preserves an inner relation to a supernatural activity, because it does not impart to the soul the act but rather the disposition to perform supernatural and meritorious acts therefore grace is remotely and mediately a disposition to act (habitus remote operativus). On account of this and other metaphysical subtleties the Council of Trent has refrained from applying the term habitus to sanctifying grace. In the order of nature a distinction is made between natural and acquired habits (habitus innatus, and habitus acquisitus), to distinguish between natural instincts, such, for instance, as are common to the brute creation, and acquired habits such as we develop by practice, for instance skill in playing a musical instrument etc. But grace is supernatural, and cannot, therefore, be classed either as a natural or an acquired habit; it can only be received, accordingly, by infusion from above, therefore it is a supernatural infused habit (habitus infusus). 3. If theologians could succeed in establishing the identity sometimes maintained between the nature of grace and charity, a great step forward would be taken in the examination of the nature of grace, for we are more familiar with the infused virtue of charity than with the hidden mysterious nature of sanctifying grace. For the identity of grace and charity some of the older theologians have contended--Peter Lombard, Scotus, Bellarmine, Lessius, and others--declaring that, according to the Bible and the teaching of the Fathers, the process of justification may be at times attributable to sanctifying grace and at other times to the virtue of charity. Similar effects demand a similar cause; therefore there exists, in this view, merely a virtual distinction between the two, inasmuch as one and the same reality appears under one aspect as grace, and under another as charity. This similarity is confirmed by the further fact that the life or death of the soul is occasioned respectively by the presence in, or absence from, the soul of charity. Nevertheless, all these arguments may tend to establish a similarity, but do not prove a case of identity. Probably the correct view is that which sees a real distinction between grace and charity, and this view is held by most theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas and Suarez. Many passages in Scripture and patrology and in the enactments of synods confirm this view. Often, indeed, grace and charity are placed side by side, which could not be done without a pleonasm if they were identical. Lastly, sanctifying grace is a habitus entitativus, and theological charity a habitus operativus: the former, namely sanctifying grace, being a habitus entitativus, informs and transforms the substance of the soul; the latter, namely charity, being a habitus operativus, supernaturally informs and influences the will (cf. Ripalda, "De ente sup.", disp. cxxiii; Billuart, "De gratia", disp. iv, 4). 4. The climax of the presentation of the nature of sanctifying grace is found in its character as a participation in the Divine nature, which in a measure indicates its specific difference. To this undeniable fact of the supernatural participation in the Divine nature is our attention directed not only by the express words of Holy Writ: ut efficiamini divinae consortes naturae (II Pet., i, 4), but also by the Biblical concept of "the issue and birth from God", since the begotten must receive of the nature of the progenitor, though in this case it only holds in an accidental and analogical sense. Since this same idea has been found in the writings of the Fathers, and is incorporated in

the liturgy of the Mass, to dispute or reject it would be nothing short of temerity. It is difficult to excogitate a manner (modus) in which this participation of the Divine nature is effected. Two extremes must be avoided, so that the truth will be found. An exaggerated theory was taught by certain mystics and quietists, a theory not free from pantheiotic taint. In this view the soul is formally changed into God, an altogether untenable and impossible hypothesis, since concupiscence remains even after justification, and the presence of concupiscence is, of course, absolutely repugnant to the Divine nature. Another theory, held by the Scotists, teaches that the participation is merely of a moral-juridical nature, and not in the least a physical participation. But since sanctifying grace is a physical accident in the soul, one cannot help referring such participation in the Divine nature to a physical and interior assimilation with God, by virtue of which we are permitted to share those goods of the Divine order to which God alone by His own nature can lay claim. In any event the "participatio divinae naturae" is not in any sense to be considered a deification, but only a making of the soul "like unto God". To the difficult question: Of which special attribute of God does this participation partake? Theologians can answer only by conjectures. Manifestly only the communicable attributes can at all be considered in the matter, wherefore Gonet (Clyp. thomist., IV, ii, x) was clearly wrong when he said that the attribute of participation was the aseitas, absolutely the most incommunicable of all the Divine attributes. Ripalda (loc. cit., disp. xx; sect. 14) is probably nearer the truth when he suggests Divine sanctity as the attribute, for the very idea of sanctifying grace brings the sanctity of God into the foreground. The theory of Suarez (De grat., VII, i, xxx), which is also favoured by Scripture and the Fathers, is perhaps the most plausible. In this theory sanctifying grace imparts to the soul a participation in the Divine spirituality, which no rational creature can by its own unaided powers penetrate or comprehend. It is, therefore, the office of grace to impart to the soul, in a supernatural way, that degree of spirituality which is absolutely necessary to give us an idea of God and His spirit, either here below in the shadows of earthly existence, or there above in the unveiled splendour of Heaven. If we were asked to condense all that we have thus far been considering into a definition, we would formulate the following: Sanctifying grace is "a quality strictly supernatural, inherent in the soul as a habitus, by which we are made to participate in the divine nature". B. Formal Operations Sanctifying Grace has its formal operations, which are fundamentally nothing else than the formal cause considered in its various moments. These operations are made known by Revelation; therefore to children and to the faithful can the splendour of grace best be presented by a vivid description of its operations. These are: sanctity, beauty, friendship, and sonship of God.

1. Sanctity The sanctity of the soul, as its first formal operation, is contained in the idea itself of sanctifying grace, inasmuch as the infusion of it makes the subject holy and inaugurates the state or condition of sanctity. So far it is, as to its nature, a physical adornment of the soul; it is also a moral form of sanctification, which of itself makes baptized children just and holy in the sight of God. This first operation is thrown into relief by the fact that the "new man", created injustice and holiness (Eph., iv, 24), was preceded by the "old man" of sin, and that grace changed the sinner into a saint (Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii: ex injusto fit justus). The two moments of actual justification, namely the remission of sin and the sanctification, are at the same time moments of habitual justification, and become the formal operations of grace. The mere infusion of the grace effects at once the remission of original and mortal sin, and inaugurates the condition or state of holiness. (See Pohle, Lehrb. der Dogm., 527 sq.) 2. Beauty Although the beauty of the soul is not mentioned by the teaching office of the Church as one of the operations of grace, nevertheless the Roman Catechism refers to it (P. II, cap. ii, de bap., n. 50). If it be permissible to understand by the spouse in the Canticle of Canticles a symbol of the soul decked in grace, then all the passages touching the ravishing beauty of the spouse may find a fitting application to the soul. Hence it is that the Fathers express the supernatural beauty of a soul in grace by the most splendid comparisons and figures of speech, for instance: "a divine picture" (Ambrose); "a golden statue" (Chrysostom); "a streaming light" (Basil), etc. Assuming that, apart from the material beauty expressed in the fine arts, there exists a purely spiritual beauty, we can safely state that grace as the participation in the Divine nature, calls forth in the soul a physical reflection of the uncreated beauty of God, which is not to be compared with the soul's natural likeness to God. We can attain to a more intimate idea of the Divine likeness in the soul adorned with grace, if we refer the picture not merely to the absolute Divine nature, as the prototype of all beauty, but more especially to the Trinity whose glorious nature is so charmingly mirrored in the soul by the Divine adoption and the inhabitation of the Holy Ghost (cf. H. Krug, De pulchritudine divina, Freiburg, 1902). 3. Friendship The friendship of God is consequently, one of the most excellent of the effects of grace; Aristotle denied the possibility of such a friendship by reason of the great disparity between God and man. As a matter of fact man is, inasmuch as he is God's creature, His servant, and by reason of sin (original and mortal) he is God's enemy. This relation of service and enmity is transformed by sanctifying grace into one of friendship (Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii: ex inimico amicus). According to the Scriptural concept (Wis., vii, 14; John, xv, 15) this friendship resembles a mystical matrimonial union between the soul and its Divine spouse (Matt., ix, 15; Apoc., xix, 7). Friendship consists in the mutual love and esteem of two persons based upon an exchange of

service or good office (Aristot., "Eth. Nicom.", VIII sq.). True friendship resting only on virtue (amicitia honesta) demands undeniably a love of benevolence, which seeks only the happiness and well-being of the friend, whereas the friendly exchange of benefits rests upon a utilitarian basis (amicitia utilis) or one of pleasure (amicitia delectabilis), which presupposes a selfish love; still the benevolent love of friendship must be mutual, because an unrequited love becomes merely one of silent admiration, which is not friendship by any means. But the strong bond of union lies undeniably in the fact of a mutual benefit, by reason of which friend regards friend as his other self (alter ego). Finally, between friends an equality of position or station is demanded, and where this does not exit an elevation of the inferior's status (amicitia excellentie), as, for example, in the case of a friendship between a king and noble subject. It is easy to perceive that all these conditions are fulfilled in the friendship between God and man effected by grace. For, just as God regards the just man with the pure love of benevolence, He likewise prepares him by the infusion of theological charity for the reception of a correspondingly pure and unselfish affection. Again, although man's knowledge of the love of God is very limited, while God's knowledge of love in man is perfect, this conjecture is sufficient--indeed in human friendships it alone is possible--to form the basis of a friendly relation. The exchange of gifts consists, on the part of God, in the bestowal of supernatural benefits, on the part of man, in the promotion of God's glory, and partly in the performance of works of fraternal charity. There is, indeed, in the first instance, a vast difference in the respective positions of God and man; but by the infusion of grace man receives a patent of nobility, and thus a friendship of excellency (amicitia excellentiae) is established between God and the just. (See Schiffini, "De gratia divina", 305 sqq., Freiburg, 1901.) 4. Sonship In the Divine filiation of the soul the formal workings of sanctifying grace reach their culminating point; by it man is entitled to a share in the paternal inheritance, which consists in the beatific vision. This excellence of grace is not only mentioned countless times in Holy Writ (Rom., viii, 15 sq.; I John, iii, 1 sq., etc.), but is included in the Scriptural idea of a re-birth in God (cf. John, i, 12 sq.; iii, 5; Titus, iii, 5; James, i, 18, etc.). Since the re-birth in God is not effected by a substantial issuance from the substance of God, as in the case of the Son of God or Logos (Christus), but is merely an analogical or accidental coming forth from God, our sonship of God is only of an adoptive kind, as we find it expressed in Scripture (Rom., viii, 15; Gal., iv, 5). This adoption was defined by St. Thomas (III:23:1): personae extraneae in filium et heredem gratuita assumptio. To the nature of this adoption there are four requisites; * the original unrelatedness of the adopted person; * fatherly love on the part of the adopting parent for the person adopted; * the absolute gratuity of the choice to sonship and heirship; * the consent of the adopted child to the act of adoption.

Applying these conditions to the adoption of man by God, we find that God's adoption exceeds man's in every point, for the sinner is not merely a stranger to God but is as one who has cast off His friendship and become an enemy. In the case of human adoption the mutual love is presumed as existing, in the case of God's adoption the love of God effects the requisite deposition in the soul to be adopted. The great and unfathomable love of God at once bestows the adoption and the consequent heirship to the kingdom of heaven, and the value of this inheritance is not diminished by the number of coheirs, as in the case of worldly inheritance. God does not impose His favours upon any one, therefore a consent is expected from adult adopted sons of God (Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii, per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum). It is quite in keeping with the excellence of the heavenly Father that He should supply for His children during the pilgrimage a fitting sustenance which will sustain the dignity of their position, and be to them a pledge of resurrection and eternal life; and this is the Bread of the Holy Eucharist (see EUCHARIST). The Supernatural Retinue This expression is derived from the Roman Catechism (P. II., c. i, n. 51), which teaches: "Huic (gratiae sanctificanti) additur nobilissimus omnium virtutum comitatus". As the concomitants of sanctifying grace, these infused virtues are not formal operations, but gifts really distinct from this grace, connected nevertheless with it by a physical, or rather a moral, indissoluble link--relationship. Therefore the Council of Vienne (1311) speaks of informans gratia et virtutes, and the Council of Trent, in a more general way, of gratia et dona. The three theological virtues, the moral virtues, the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul are all considered. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, c. vii) teaches that the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity are in the process of justification infused into the soul as supernatural habits. Concerning the time of infusion, it is an article of faith (Sess. VI, can. xi) that the virtue of charity is infused immediately with sanctifying grace, so that throughout the whole term of existence sanctifying grace and charity are found as inseparable companions. Concerning the habitus of faith and hope, Suarez is of the opinion (as against St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure) that, assuming a favourable disposition in the recipient, they are infused earlier in the process of justification. Universally known is the expression of St. Paul (I Cor., xiii, 13), "And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity." Since, here, faith and hope are placed on a par with charity, but charity is considered as diffused in the soul (Rom., v, 5), conveying thus the idea of an infused habit, it will be seen that the doctrine of the Church so consonant with the teaching of the Fathers is also supported by Scripture. The theological virtues have God directly as their formal object, but the moral virtues are directed in their exercise to created things in their moral relations. All the special moral virtues can be reduced to the four cardinal virtues: prudence (prudentia), justice (justitia), fortitude (fortitudo), temperance (temperantia). The Church favours the opinion that along with grace and charity the four cardinal virtues (and, according to many theologians, their subsidiary virtues also) are communicated to the souls of the just as supernatural habitus, whose office it is to give to the intellect and the will, in their moral relations with created things, a supernatural

direction and inclination. By reason of the opposition of the Scotists this view enjoys only a degree of probability, which, however, is supported by passages in Scripture (Prov., viii, 7; Ezech., xi, 19; II Pet., i, 3 sqq.) as well as the teaching of the Fathers (Augustine, Gregory the Great, and others). Some theologians add to the infusion of the theological and moral virtues also that of the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, though this view cannot be called anything more than a mere opinion. There are difficulties in the way of the acceptance of this opinion which cannot be here discussed. The article of faith goes only to this extent, that Christ as man possessed the seven gifts (cf. Is., xi, 1 sqq.; lxi, l; Luke, iv, 18). Remembering, however, that St. Paul (Rom., viii, 9 sqq.) considers Christ, as man, the mystical head of mankind, and the August exemplar of our own justification, we may possibly assume that God gives in the process of justification also the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost. The crowning point of justification is found in the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is the perfection and the supreme adornment of the justified soul. Adequately considered, the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit consists of a twofold grace, the created accidental grace (gratia creata accidentalis) and the uncreated substantial grace (gratia increata substantialis). The former is the basis and the indispensable assumption for the latter; for where God Himself erects His throne, there must be found a fitting and becoming adornment. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul must not be confounded with God's presence in all created things, by virtue of the Divine attribute of Omnipresence. The personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul rests so securely upon the teaching of Holy Writ and of the Fathers that to deny it would constitute a grave error. In fact, St. Paul (Rom., v, 5) says: "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us". In this passage the Apostle distinguishes clearly between the accidental grace of theological charity and the Person of the Giver. From this it follows that the Holy Spirit has been given to us, and dwells within us (Rom.,viii, 11), so that we really become temples of the Holy Ghost (I Cor., iii, 16 sq.; vi, 19). Among all the Fathers of the Church (excepting, perhaps, St. Augustine) it is the Greeks who are more especially noteworthy for their rapturous uttertances touching the infusion of the Holy Ghost. Note the expressions: "The replenishing of the soul with balsamic odours", "a glow permeating the soul", "a gilding and refining of the soul". Against the Pneumatomachians they strive to prove the real Divinity of the Holy Spirit from His indwelling, maintaining that only God can establish Himself in the soul; surely no creature can inhabit any other creatures. But clear and undeniable as the fact of the indwelling is, equally difficult and perplexing is it in degree to explain the method and manner (modus) of this indwelling. Theologians offer two explanations. The greater number hold that the indweling must not be considered a substantial information, nor a hypostatic union, but that it really means an indwelling of the Trinity (John, xiv, 23), but is more specifically appropriated to the Holy Ghost by reason of His notional character as the Hypostatic Holiness and Personal Love.

Another small group of theologians (Petavius, Scheeben, Hurter, etc.), basing their opinion upon the teaching of the Fathers, especially the Greek, distinguish between the inhabitatio totius Trinitatis, and the inhabitatio Spiritus Sancti, and decide that this latter must be regarded as a union (unio, enosis) pertaining to the Holy Ghost alone, from which the other two Persons are excluded. It would be difficult, if not impossible to reconcile this theory, in spite of its deep mystical significance, with the recognized principles of the doctrine of the Trinity, namely the law of appropriation and Divine mission. Hence this theory is almost universally rejected (see Franzelin, "De Deo trino", thes. xliii-xlviii, Rome, 1881). III. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SANCTIFYING GRACE The Protestant conception of justification boasts of three characteristics: absolute certainty (certitudo), complete uniformity in all the justified (aequalitas), unforfeitableness (inamissibilitas). According to the teaching of the Church, sanctifying grace has the opposite characteristics: uncertainty (incertitudo), inequality (inaequalitas), and amissibility (amissibilitas). A. Uncertainty The heretical doctrine of the Reformers, that man by a fiduciary faith knows with absolute certainty that he is justified, received the attention of the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. ix), in one entire chapter (De inani fiducia haereticorum), three canons (loc. cit., can. xiii-xv) condemning the necessity, the alleged power, and the function of fiduciary faith. The object of the Church in defining the dogma was not to shatter the trust in God (certitudo spei) in the matter of personal salvation, but to repel the misleading assumptions of an unwarranted certainty of salvation (certitudo fidei). In doing this the Church is altogether obedient to the instruction of Holy Writ, for, since Scripture declares that we must work out our salvation "with fear and trembling" (Phil., ii, 12), it is impossible to regard our individual salvation as something fixed antd certain. Why did St. Paul (I Cor., ix, 27) chastise his body if not afraid lest, having preached to others, he might himself "become a castaway"? He says expressly (I Cor., iv, 4): "For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord." Tradition also rejects the Lutheran idea of certainty of justification. Pope Gregory the Great (lib. VII, ep. xxv) was asked by a pious lady of the court, named Gregoria, to say what was the state of her soul. He replied that she was putting to him a difficult and useless question, which he could not answer, because God had not vouchsafed to him any revelation concerning the state of her soul, and only after her death could she have any certain knowledge as to the forgiveness of her sins. No one can be absolutely certain of his or her salvation unless--as to Magdalen, to the man with the palsy, or to the penitent thief--a special revelation be given (Trent, Sess. VI, can. xvi). Nor can a theological certainty, any more than an absolute certainty of belief, be claimed regarding the matter of salvation, for the spirit of the Gospel is strongly opposed to anything like an unwarranted certainty of salvation. Therefore the rather hostile attitude to the Gospel spirit advanced by Ambrosius Catherinus (d. 1553), in his little work: "De certitudine

gratiae", received such general opposition from other theologians. Since no metaphysical certainty can be cherished in the matter of justification in any particular case, we must content ourselves with a moral certainty, which, of course, is but warranted in the case of baptized children, and which, in the case of adults diminishes more or less, just as all the conditions of, salvation are complied with--not an easy matter to determine. Nevertheless any excessive anxiety and disturbance may be allayed (Rom., viii, 16, 38 sq.) by the subjective conviction that we are probably in the state of grace. B. Inequality If man, as the Protestant theory of justification teaches, is justified by faith alone, by the external justice of Christ, or God, the conclusion which Martin Luther (Sermo de nat. Maria) drew must follow, namely that "we are all equal to Mary the Mother of God and just as holy as she". But if on the other hand, according to the teaching of the Church, we are justifed by the justice and merits of Christ in such fashion that this becomes formally our own justice and holiness, then there must result an inequality of grace in individuals, and for two reasons: first, because according to the generosity of God or the receptive condition of the soul an unequal amount of grace is infused; then, also, because the grace originally received can be increased by the performance of good works (Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii, can. xxiv). This possibility of increase in grace by good works, whence would follow its inequality in individuals, find its warrant in those Scriptural texts in which an increase of grace is either expressed or implied (Prov., iv, 18; Ecclus., xviii, 22; II Cor., ix, 10; Eph., iv, 7; II Pet., iii, 18; Apoc., xxii, 11). Tradition had occasion, as early as the close of the fourth century, to defend the old Faith of the Church against the heretic Jovinian, who strove to introduce into the Church the Stoic doctrine of the equality of all virtue and all vice. St. Jerome (Con. Jovin., II, xxiii) was the chief defender of orthodoxy in this instance. The Church never recognized any other teaching than that laid down by St. Augustine (Tract. in Jo., vi, 8): "Ipsi sancti in ecclesia sunt alii aliis sanctiores, alii aliis meliores." Indeed, this view should commend itself to every thinking man. The increase of grace is by theologians justly called a second justification (justificatio secunda), as distinct from the first justification (justificatio prima), which is coupled with a remission of sin; for, though there be in the second justification no transit from sin to grace, there is an advance from grace to a more perfect sharing therein. If inquiry be made as to the mode of this increase, it can only be explained by the philosophical maxim: "Qualities are susceptible of increase and decrease"; for instance, light and heat by the varying degree of intensity increase or diminish. The question is not a theological but a philosophical one to decide whether the increase be effected by an addition of grade to grade (additio gradus ad gradum), as most theologians believe; or whether it be by a deeper and firmer taking of root in the soul (major radicatio in subjecto), as many Thomists claim. This question has a special connection with that concerning the multiplication of the habitual act. But the last question that arises has decidedly a theological phase, namely, can the infusion of

sanctifying grace be increased infinitely? Or is there a limit, a point at which it must be arrested? To maintain that the increase can go on to infinity, i.e. that man by successive advances in holiness can finally enter into the possession of an infinite endowment involves a manifest contradiction, for such a grade is as impossible as an infinite temperature in physics. Theoretically, therefore, we can consider only an increase without any real limit (in indefinitum). Practically however, two ideals of unattained and unattainable holiness have been determined, which nevertheless, are finite. The one is the inconceivably great holiness of the human soul of Christ, the other the fullness of grace which dwelt in the soul of the Virgin Mary. C. Amissibility In consonance with his doctrine of justification by faith alone, Luther made the loss or forfeiture of justification depend solely upon infidelity, while Calvin maintained that the predestined could not possibly lose their justification; as to those not predestined, he said, God merely aroused in them a deceitful show of faith and justification. On account of the grave moral dangers which lurked in the assertion that outside of unbelief there can be no serious sin destructive of Divine grace in the soul, the Council of Trent was obliged to condemn (Sess. VI, can. xxiii, xxvii) both these views. The lax principles of "evangelical liberty", the favourite catchword of the budding Reformation, were simply repudiated (Trent Sess. VI, can. xix-xxi). But the synod (Sess. VI cap. xi) added that not venial but only mortal sin involved the loss of grace. In this declaration there was a perfect accord with Scripture and Tradition. Even in the Old Testament the prophet Ezechiel (Ezech., xviii, 24) says of the godless: "All his justices which he hath done, shall not be remembered: in the prevarication, by which he hath prevaricated, and in his sin, which he hath committed, in them he shall die." Not in vain does St. Paul (I Cor., x, 12) warn the just: "Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall"; and state uncompromisingly: "The unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God...neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers.... nor covetous, nor drunkards...shall possess the kingdom of God" (I Cor., vi, 9 sq.). Hence it is not by infidelity alone that the Kingdom of Heaven will be lost. Tradition shows that the discipline of confessors in the early Church proclaims the belief that grace and justification are lost by mortal sin. The principle of justification by faith alone is unknown to the Fathers. The fact that mortal sin takes the soul out of the state of grace is due to the very nature of mortal sin. Mortal sin is an absolute turning away from God, the supernatural end of the soul, and is an absolute turning to creatures; therefore, habitual mortal sin cannot exist with habitual grace any more than fire and water can co-exist in the same subject. But as venial sin does not constitute such an open rupture with God, and does not destroy the friendship of God, therefore venial sin does not expel sanctifying grace from the soul. Hence, St. Augustine says (De spir. et lit., xxviii, 48): "Non impediunt a vita Aeterna justum quaedam peccata venialia, sine quibus haec vita non ducitur." But does venial sin, without extinguishing grace, nevertheless diminish it, just as good works give an increase of grace? Denys the Carthusian (d. 1471) was of the opinion that it does, though St. Thomas rejects it (II-II:24:10). A gradual decrease of grace would only be possible on the supposition that either a definite number of venial sins amounted to a mortal sin, or that the

supply of grace might be diminished, grade by grade, down to ultimate extinction. The first hypothesis is contrary to the nature of venial sin; the second leads to the heretical view that grace may be lost without the commission of mortal sin. Nevertheless, venial sins have an indirect influence on the state of grace, for they make a relapse into mortal sin easy (cf. Ecclus., xix, 1). Does the loss of sanctifying grace bring with it the forfeiture of the supernatural retinue of infused virtues? Since the theological virtue of charity, though not identical, nevertheless is inseparably connected with grace, it is clear that both must stand or fall together, hence the expressions "to fall from grace" and "to lose charity" are equivalent. It is an article of faith (Trent, Sess. VI, can. xxviii, cap. xv) that theological faith may survive the Commission of mortal sin, and can be extinguished only by its diametrical opposite, namely, infidelity. It may be regarded as a matter of Church teaching that theological hope also survives mortal sin, unless this hope should be utterly killed by its extreme opposite, namely despair, though probably it is not destroyed by it second opposite, presumption. With regard to the moral virtues, the seven gifts and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, which invariably accompany grace and charity, it is clear that when mortal sin enters into the soul they cease to exist (cf. Suarez, "De gratia", IX, 3 sqq.). As to the fruits of sanctifying grace, see MERIT.

SALVATION
From Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm

Salvation has in Scriptural language the general meaning of liberation from straitened circumstances or from other evils, and of a translation into a state of freedom and security (I Kings, xi, 13; xiv, 45; II Kings, xxiii, 10; IV Kings, xiii, 17). At times it expresses God's help against Israel's enemies, at other times, the Divine blessing bestowed on the produce of the soil (Is., xlv, 8). As sin is the greatest evil, being the root and source of all evil, Sacred Scripture uses the word "salvation" mainly in the sense of liberation of the human race or of individual man from sin and its consequences. We shall first consider the salvation of the human race, and then salvation as it is verified in the individual man. I. SALVATION OF THE HUMAN RACE We need not dwell upon the possibility of the salvation of mankind or upon its appropriateness. Nor need we remind the reader that after God had freely determined to save the human race, He might have done so by pardoning man's sins without having recourse to the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Still, the Incarnation of the Word was the most fitting means for the salvation of man, and was even necessary, in case God claimed full satisfaction for the injury done to him by sin (see INCARNATION). Though the office of Saviour is really one, it is virtually multiple: there must be an atonement for sin and damnation, an establishment of the truth so as to overcome human ignorance and error, a perennial source of spiritual strength aiding man in his struggle against darkness and concupiscence. There can be no doubt that Jesus Christ really fulfilled these three functions, that He therefore really saved mankind from sin and its consequences. As teacher He established the reign of truth; as king He supplied strength to His subjects; as priest He stood between heaven and earth, reconciling sinful man with his angry God. A. Christ as Teacher Prophets had foretold Christ as a teacher of Divine truth: "Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, for a leader and a master to the Gentiles" (Is., lv, 4). Christ himself claims the title of teacher repeatedly during the course of His public life: "You can call me Master, and Lord; and you say well, for so I am" (John, xiii, 13; cf. Matt., xxiii, 10; John, iii, 31). The Gospels inform us that nearly the whole of Christ's public life was devoted to teaching (see JESUS CHRIST). There can be no doubt as to the supereminence of Christ's teaching; even as man, He is an eyewitness to all He reveals; His truthfulness is God's own veracity; His authority is Divine; His words are the utterance of a Divine person; He can internally illumine and move the minds of

His hearers; He is the eternal and infinite wisdom of God Incarnate Who cannot deceive and cannot be deceived. B. Christ as King The royal character of Christ was foretold by the Prophets, announced by the angels, claimed by Christ Himself (Ps., ii, 6; Is., ix, 6-7; Ezech., xxxiv, 23; Jer., xxiii, 3-5; Luke, i, 32-33; John, xviii, 37). His royal functions are the foundation, the expansion and the final consummation of the kingdom of God among men. The first and last of these acts are personal and visible acts of the king, but the intermediate function is carried out either invisibly, or by Christ's visible agents. The practical working of the kingly office of Christ is described in the treatises on the sources of revelation; on grace, on the Church, on the sacraments, and on the last things. C. Christ as Priest The ordinary priest, is made God's own by an accidental unction, Christ is constituted God's own Son by the substantial unction with the Divine nature; the ordinary priest is made holy, though not impeccable, by his consecration, while Christ is separated from all sin and sinners by the hypostatic union; the ordinary priest draws nigh unto God in a very imperfect manner, but Christ is seated at the right hand of the power of God. The Levitical priesthood was temporal, earthly, and carnal in its origin, in its relations to God, in its working, in its power; Christ's priesthood is eternal, heavenly, and spiritual. The victims offered by the ancient priests were either lifeless things or, at best, irrational animals distinct from the person of the offerer; Christ offers a victim included in the person of the offerer. His living human flesh, animated by His rational soul, a real and worthy substitute for mankind, on whose behalf Christ offers the sacrifice. The Aaronic priest inflicted an irreparable death on the victim which his sacrificial intention changed into a religious rite or symbol; in Christ's sacrifice the immutation of the victim is brought about by an internal act of His will (John, x, 17), and the victim's death is the source of a new life to himself and to mankind. Besides, Christ's sacrifice, being that of a Divine person, carries its own acceptance with it; it is as much of a gift of God to man, as a sacrifice of man to God. Hence follows the perfection of the salvation wrought by Christ for mankind. On His part Christ offered to God a satisfaction for man's sin not only sufficient but superabundant (Rom., v, 15-20); on God's part supposing, what is contained in the very idea of man's redemption through Christ, that God agreed to accept the work of the Redeemer for the sins of man, He was bound by His promise and His justice to grant the remission of sin to the extent and in the manner intended by Christ. In this way our salvation has won back for us the essential prerogative of the state of original justice, i.e., sanctifying grace while it will restore the minor prerogatives of the Resurrection. At the same time, it does not at once blot out individual sin, but only procures the means thereto, and these means are not restricted only to the predestined or to the faithful, but extend to all men (I John, ii, 2; I Tim., ii, 1-4). Moreover salvation makes us coheirs of Christ (Rom., viii, 14-17), a royal priesthood (I Pet., ii, 9; cf. Ex., xix, 6), sons of God, temples of the

Holy Ghost (I Cor., iii, 16), and other Christs--Christianus alter Christus; it perfects the angelical orders, raises the dignity of the material world, and restores all things in Christ (Eph., i, 9-10). By our salvation all things are ours, we are Christ's, and Christ is God's (I Cor., iii, 22-23). II. INDIVIDUAL SALVATION The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi). It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner's heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man's free will. Thus assisted the sinner is disposed for salvation from sin; he believes in the revelation and promises of God, he fears God's justice, hopes in his mercy, trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ's sake, begins to love God as the source of all justice, hates and detests his sins. This disposition is followed by justification itself, which consists not in the mere remission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God's grace and gifts, whence a man becomes just instead of unjust, a friend instead of a foe and so an heir according to hope of eternal life. This change happens either by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance according to the condition of the respective subject laden with sin. The Council further indicates the causes of this change. By the merit of the Most Holy Passion through the Holy Spirit, the charity of God is shed abroad in the hearts of those who are justified. Against the heretical tenets of various times and sects we must hold * that the initial grace is truly gratuitous and supernatural; * that the human will remains free under the influence of this grace; * that man really cooperates in his personal salvation from sin; * that by justification man is really made just, and not merely declared or reputed so; * that justification and sanctification are only two aspects of the same thing, and not ontologically and chronologically distinct realities; * that justification excludes all mortal sin from the soul, so that the just man is no way liable to the sentence of death at God's judgment-seat.

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/justification/justify_12.htm Salvation from the Perspective of the Early Church Fathers By Chris Erickson The disputes between Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as amidst the various Protestant traditions themselves, should, if nothing else, cause one to wonder what the earliest Christian communities thought on any subject being contested. What did those who learned their faith directly from the preaching of the Apostles themselves say regarding man's salvation? For this, of course, we turn to the writings of these Early Church Fathers. The writings of the Church Fathers respected Christian teachers of the early centuries recognized as special witnesses of the Christian Faith because of their antiquity, orthodoxy and personal sanctity allow us a glimpse into that early window of Christian life and thought. The earliest Fathers were conversant with the apostles themselves, and therefore were unparalleled in their position to receive extensively accurate instruction in Christian Faith. One such person was an Eastern (Greek) Father, Polycarp of Smyrna (AD 69-156). Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-200) had this to say about Polycarp: "But Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also by the apostles in Asia appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried on earth a very long timehaving always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down" (Against Heresies 3:3; AD 191). What exactly did these first Christians believe and teach with regard to salvation? It is important to note that these Christian teachers of antiquity were not attempting to define precise theological points of doctrine; they were more concerned with general concepts, instructions, and admonitions for living the Christian faith in a time of often intense persecution. Therefore we won't find the early Fathers engaged in dissecting a particular Pauline phrase in order to understand the Christian concept of justification. Moreover, such an approach would be foreign to the early Church since it can lead to misconceptions: "Those who are particular about words, and devote their time to them, miss the point of the whole picture" (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Bk. II, Ch. 1, AD 150-215). Nonetheless, the Fathers of the Church had written on related matters concerning salvation, such as the role of faith and grace, the role of obedience, righteousness, baptism, etc. From these we can ascertain the mind and thought of the early Christian communities concerning salvation.

A common mistake often made is to misrepresent the Fathers by choosing selective quotations that bolster one's own personal beliefs, discarding those that do not. It will hopefully be obvious to the reader that this study has avoided that error. Clement of Rome (AD 96) The earliest Christian document outside the New Testament writings comes to us from Clement of Rome: The Letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth (commonly known as Clement's First Letter). It was so highly esteemed in Christian antiquity that for a while it was even accepted as part of the canon of Scripture in Egypt and Syria. Many scholars believe Clement is identified as the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3. Regardless, Clement was the bishop of Rome at the close of the first century. He was familiar with St. Paul's Epistles, and he certainly believed and taught that we are justified by faith: And we, thereforeare not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight or religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning (ch. 32:4). One might determine that Clement held a Reformed view of justification; however, Clement had more to say on the subject. In fact, it would lead future critics to say that Clement moved away from Pauline teaching toward ethical interests. Actually, Paul and Clement were saying the exact same thing. They both spoke of salvation in terms of requiring a comprehensive response on the part of the Christian: believing that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and living a life of holiness. Hence Clement would not only write of being justified by faith, but he would also say: We should clothe ourselves with concord, being humble, self-controlled, far removed from all gossiping and slandering, and justified by our deeds, not by words (ch. 30:3). Is the reader led to conclude that there exists an inherent self-contradiction in Clement's letter? Or was Clement promulgating the essential truth of the Gospel notwithstanding Paul's teaching on the necessity of faith for salvation? Clement did not understand Paul to be offering an either/or proposition, but rather both/and. According to Paul sin and grace are entirely opposed. "For what participation has justice with injustice? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" (2 Cor. 6:14). It was an entirely new way of life that was required of the Christian to inherit God's promises: faith and an inner conversion of the heart that would naturally show itself in good works of holiness. Clement believed that both Christ's and Paul's teaching held that if the latter is missing, the former is barren (cf. Mt. 7:21; Lk. 13:24; 1 Cor. 13:2; 15:1,2; James 2:14ff).

Clement taught that the Christian moral life is imperative for salvation, that faith and obedience is what God considers righteousness. Clement points out that our actionsour good deeds prompted by faithis what God reckons as righteousness: "Why was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he acted in righteousness and truth, prompted by faith?" (ch.31:2-3). Clement further instructed the Church of Corinth that Abraham inherited God's promises because of his (1) faith, (2) obedience and (3) hospitality: It was obedience which led [Abraham] to quit his country, his kindred, and his father's house, so that, by leaving a paltry country, a mean kindred, and an insignificant house, he might inherit God's promises (ch. 10:2). Because of [Abraham's] faith and hospitality a son was granted to him in his old age (ch. 10:7). Paul tells us that justification requires faith. Clement affirms that. But what does faith require? Paul says that faith requires (1) believing (cf. 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Cor. 5:7), (2) obedience (cf. Rom. 1:5; 6:16), and (3) love [hospitality] (cf. Gal. 5:6), exactly what Clement said in Chapter 10 quoted above. Paul and Clement accentuated the necessity of faith, that our salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, and nothing we can do of our own accord (including holy deeds of the heart) apart from that faith will gain us our salvation. But they both taught that faith requires conversion that proves itself in Christian moral living, works of gracefruits of the Holy Spirit working in us. St. Augustine would later remark that Without love faith can indeed exist, but can be of no avail (De Trin. XV 18, 32). Clement refers to several scriptural passages (Isa. 40:10; 62:11; Prov. 24:12; Rev. 22:12) to augment his plea to the Corinthians to persevere in doing good, which will eventually pay a reward: We must, then, be eager to do good; for everything comes from Him. For he warns us: `See, the Lord is coming. He is bringing his reward with him, to pay each one according to his work' (ch. 34:2,3). What is this reward we are to receive, this pay according to our work? Eternal salvation. For what are we being paidour works? Partially, yes, but correctly understood! It is "our" work only insofar as it is our cooperation with God's grace as opposed to "the works of the Law." Hence it is God's work in us manifesting itself in the fruits of the Holy Spirit that lead us to salvation, beginning with faith, supported by faith, and persevering in faith. (Matt 10:22; Trent,

sess. 6, ch. 8;). Protestant traditions have generally objected to that on the principle that it would result in God paying us the reward of salvation for something we do. It would therefore cease to be gratuitous. However, Paul condemns those who make salvation a wage or salary as if we can buy our salvation through our own works or deeds apart from faith and God's grace. Paul doesn't condemn receiving a payment/reward as a filial inheritance from God for those who have faith working in love (cf. Gal. 5:6), for those who do God's commands. This type of labor can only boast in God. Thus St. Augustine's famous adage: "When God rewards my labors, He only crowns His own works in me." Ignatius of Antioch (AD 35-107) The writings of another Apostolic Father from the East, Ignatius of Antioch, are further testimony of how truly far back this teaching reaches. Ignatius tells us that along with baptism, faith and charity, our works will be our deposits to receive what is our due: Let your baptism be ever your shield, your faith a helmet, your charity a spear, your patience a panoply. Let your works be deposits, so that you may receive the sum that is due you" (Letter to St. Polycarp, 6). Is Ignatius telling us that we are due something from God? Our due is death as a result of sin. But what is our due after baptism, faith, charity and obedience to God's will? Then, we are due God's promises according to the conditions God set forth. God did not have to offer us any conditional element. He did not have to offer us anything. It's entirely gratuitous from beginning to end. His infinite love drove Him to put Himself in a position of "owing" something to man, if man would only love and obey Him. If we are to love Him, we must first believe in him (faith). And John 14:15 tells us that if we truly love Him, we will obey him (conversion, holiness, right living, good deeds, righteousness). Ignatius was quoted above as saying, "let your works be deposits, so that you may receive the sum that is due you." He would also say: Therefore, let us not be ungrateful for His kindness. For if He were to reward us according to our works, we would cease to be (Epistle to the Magnesians, Ch. 5).

Again, do we conclude that another Church Father is self-contradictory? Or do we acknowledge a distinction present in the early Christian communities between our own works (works of the Law) that lead us to boast in ourselves, and the works of God in us built upon an interior conversion that can only lead to our boasting in God alone. To abandon that truth leads every early Christian writer to appear self-contradictory, it poses an apparent disharmony between Paul and James, and consequently leads to a Reformed view of justification. Ignatius' letters were written while on his way to martyrdom, and he recognized the importance of our actions "motivated by faith," as opposed to a "momentary act of professing" that faith: Those who profess to be Christ's will be recognized by their actions. For what matters is not a momentary act of professing, but being persistently motivated by faith (The Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians, ch. 14:2). This is a corollary to our Lord's warning in Matthew 10:22: "But he who endures to the end will be saved." Polycarp of Smyrna (AD 69-156) Polycarp of Smyrna was an Eastern Father acquainted with Ignatius and well versed in Paul's Epistles. In Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, he says: "knowing that `you are saved by grace, not because of works' (Eph. 2:5,9,9), namely, by the will of God through Jesus Christ" (ch. 1:3). Polycarp affirms Pauline teaching, as did Clement and Ignatius. But he also affirmed the necessity of love, obedience and living a life of holiness. This is seen when Polycarp quotes St. Paul and then adds his own admonition, drawing from 1 John: "For `he who raised him from the dead will raise us also' (2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Cor. 6:14; Rom 8:11), if we do his will and follow his commandments, and love what he loved (1 John 4:11,12), refraining from all wrongdoing" (ch. 2:2,3). Let us remember that Polycarp conversed with the apostles, sat at the feet of St. John as Irenaeus tells us, and that the apostles obviously thought him to be a man of outstanding repute since they did appoint him Bishop of Smyrna. It would, then, be safe to say that Polycarp did not depart from Pauline thought, but instead felt quite comfortable to quote Paul and add his own qualifier "if we do" Polycarp must have believed this was harmonious with the full corpus of Paul's teaching and that of the other apostles. Polycarp taught that there were a number of moral commands to which the Christian must adhere in order to inherit the Kingdom. Faith without meeting these moral demands will not be enough.

Polycarp argued that anyone occupied in these three things: growing in the faith, accompanied by hope, and led by love, has fulfilled the commandment of righteousness (ch. 3:2-3). Drawing from the Scriptures he would also say: "`Whenever you are able to do a kindness, do not put it off' (Prov.3:28), because `almsgiving frees from death' [Tobit 4:10ff]" (ch. 10:2). Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) The Eastern Father Justin Martyr echoes the teaching of Ignatius insofar as he makes it clear that it is not those who "merely profess" Christ, but those who "do the works" the Saviour commanded that will be saved: Those who are found not living as he taught should know that they are not really Christians, even if his teachings are on their lips, for he said that not those who merely profess but those who also do the works will be saved (cf. Matt. 13:42, 43; 7:15,16,19)" (The First Apology of Justin, ch.16). Justin would also say that "Each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions" (The First Apology of Justin, ch. 7). "The matters of our religion lie in works, not in words" (Hortatory Address to the Greeks, ch. 35). Yet Justin also proves himself consistent with the other Fathers in affirming the necessity of faith: "For Abraham was declared by God to be righteous, not on account of circumcision, but on account of faith" (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. XCII). Athenagoras (2nd Century AD) Athenagoras, an Eastern Father, argues that Christians must live in a strict moral manner, because they must give an appropriate account of all their life in order to receive the reward of salvation: But since we are persuaded that we must give an account of all our life here to God who made us and the world, we adopt a temperate, generous, despised way of life. For we think that, even if we lose our lives, we shall suffer here no evil to be compared with the reward we shall receive from the great Judge for a gentle, generous, and modest life (A Plea Regarding Christians by Athenagoras, ch.12). Irenaeus (AD 130-200)

Irenaeus, a Western Father, in his writings, Against Heresies, Book I, confirms the necessity of a life of love and holiness, as well as keeping our Lord's commandments in order to receive eternal life: But to the righteous and holy, and those who have kept his commandments and have remained in his lovehe will by his grace give life incorrupt, and will clothe them with eternal glory (ch.10:1). It is the entire gamut of the Christian moral life, according to Irenaeus, that brings salvation. Irenaeus criticized the Gnostics of being "devoid of sense" because "they keep silent with regard to His judgments and all those things which will come upon those who heard His words, but have not done them. For it would better for them if they had not been born" (Against Heresies, Bk. IV, ch. XXVIII). Irenaeus believed that conversion was dependent upon Christ's grace, and apart from that grace, man has no power to procure salvation. The more we receive that grace, the more we are obligated to love Christ: No one, indeed while placed out of reach of our Lord's benefits, has power to procure for himself the means of salvation. So the more we receive His grace, the more we should love Him (Against Heresies, Bk. IV, ch. XIII). Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) Clement of Alexandria, an Eastern Father, will also speak of the necessity of believing and obeying if grace is to abound: "Rightly, then, to those who have believed and obey, grace will abound beyond measure" (Exhortation to the Heathen, ch. 5). He presents "faith" as the first movement in a process that leads to salvation. That means more is required if we are to reach the goal of salvation: We have discovered faith to be the first movement towards salvation. After faith, fear, hope, and repentance (accompanied by temperance and patience) lead us to love and knowledge (The Stromata, Bk. II, ch. VI). Clement echoes the earlier Fathers, and we see a familiar teaching being handed down from the early Christians: 1) "`For by grace we are saved---but not, indeed, without good worksFor this,

we have the greatest need of divine grace" (The Stromata, Bk. II, ch. I); and 2) "The same from the foundation of the world is each one who at different periods is saved, and will be saved by faith" (The Stromata, Bk. VI, ch, VI). Clement is simply teaching what he received from the earlier Christians, that salvation will require faith and conversion. Inner conversion will show itself externally in a life of holiness; without that, faith is barren. All is necessary and all is only made possible through Christ's grace. A Cloud of Early Witnesses (AD 160-320) Tertullian (AD 160-223), a Western Father, recognized the necessity of both faith and doing God's will in order to be saved. He exhorts "those who are justified by faith in Christ, and not by the Law, to have peace with God" (Against Marcion, Bk. V, ch. XIII). And he also writes: We make petition, then, that He supply us with the substance of His will and the capacity to do it--so that we may be saved both in the heaven and on earth (On Prayer, part III, ch. IV). Theophilus (approx. AD 180), an Eastern Father, spoke of a life of doing well and obeying God's command to procure salvation: To those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek immortality, He will give eternal life everlasting life" (Theophilus to Autolycus, Bk. I, ch. XIII). "For man drew death upon himself by disobeying. So, by obeying the will of God, he who wants to can procure for himself life everlasting (Bk. II, ch. XXVII). Origin (AD 184-254), another Easter Father, would speak about having communion and friendship with God only if, along with faith, we lived our life according to the teaching of Jesus: "It is those who not only believe, but also enter upon the life that Jesus taught" (Against Celcus, Bk. III, ch. XXVIII). Cyprian (d. 258), a Western Father, did not think it was possible to have faith in Christ if you did not do what He commanded: How can a man say that he believes in Christ, if he does not do what Christ commanded him to do? From where will he attain the reward of faith, if he will not keep the faith of the commandment? He will make no advancement in his walk toward salvation, for he does not keep the truth of the way of salvation" (The Treatises of Cyprian, Treatise I, ch. II).

Cyprian believed that the righteous man is not only he who believes in God but he who lives in faith: "Assuredly, then, whoever believes in God and lives in faith is found righteous and is already blessed in faithful Abraham" (The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXII, ch. IV). "Living in faith" to Cyprian was simply keeping the faith of the commandments, doing what Christ commanded. Lactantius (AD 240-320), a Western Father, continues this same thought: Labors that are endured and overcome all the way up until death, cannot fail to obtain a reward.And this reward can be nothing else but immortality (The Divine Institutes, Bk. III, ch. XII). And again: "The spirit must earn immortality by the works of righteousness" (Bk. IV, ch. XXV). Basil the Great (AD 329-379) Basil the Great, an Eastern Father, tells us of being "acceptable to God" through obeying the gospel, purging sins, and being active in good works: He who would obey the gospel must first be purged of all defilement of the flesh and the spirit that so he may be acceptable to God in the good works of holiness (The Morals, 2, 1). Speaking on penance, Basil believed that simply renouncing sins was not enough for salvation; rather, an act of penance was necessary as well: Mere renouncement of sin is not sufficient for the salvation of penitents, but fruits worthy of penance are also required of them (The Morals, 1, 3). Ambrose (AD 340-397) The writings of St. Ambrose, a Latin Father, would be very much akin to St. Paul. Ambrose taught that faithnot works that would lead one to boastis necessary for salvation: God chose that man should seek salvation by faith rather than by works, lest anyone should glory in his deeds and thereby incur sin (In Ps. 43 Enarr. 14). Ambrose would also say: "Without the support of faith good works cannot stand" (On the Duties of the Clergy, 2, 7). That means that with the support of faith, good works can stand. If they can stand, then they certainly do not lead one to boast in himself, they do not lead one to sin. Ambrose has in mind a distinction here between "works" leading us to boast in God and "works" leading us to boast in ourselves. These latter works can never stand, with or without the support

of faith. Ambrose would also confirm the sentiments of Clement of Alexandria insofar as faith is the first movement in a process when Ambrose said: "Faith is the beginning of a Christian man" (Explanation of Psalm 118: 20, 56, 57). This implies that there is more to follow, since faith is not said to be the beginning, the middle and the end of the Christian man, as if there were no other obligations. Furthermore, the whole chapter of Psalm 118, which is what Ambrose is commenting on, is a treatise on faith, obedience and love. John Chrysostom (AD 347-407) John Chrysostom, an Eastern Father, was very familiar with Pauline thought. In Chrysostom's sermon on Ephesians 1:4-5, he asked why God chose us: And why did [God] choose us? `That we should be holy and blameless before him.' So that you may not suppose, when you hear that he chose us, that faith alone is sufficient, he goes on to refer to manner of life. This, he says, is the reason and the purpose of his choicethat we should be holy and blameless Being holy is a matter of sharing in faith; being blameless is a matter of living an irreproachable life (Homilies on Ephesians, 1, 1-2). Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430) St. Augustine, a Latin Father, taught that righteousness consists of doing good works: How speedily are the prayers of people who do good works heard! For it is precisely in fasting, alms, deeds and prayer that our righteousness in this life consists (In Ps. 42 Enarr. I, 8). But Augustine made the critical distinction that Paul made, that Luther refused to make: We do the works, but God works in us the doing of the works (De Dono Perseverentiae, 13, 33). Conclusion What we find in the writings of the early Fathers is a consistent voice in early Christian life and thought affirming the indissoluble necessity of faith in our Lord and interior conversion that must show itself in a life of holiness. The only boasting that can be done is boasting in God's work, "for apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). Catholic teaching is not only clearly present in early Christian life and thought, but it has remained remarkably consistent throughout twenty long centuries, faithfully handing down what it had received.

Are we to conclude that the Reformers of the sixteenth century better understood the tenets of the Christian Faith than these early Christian teachers? C. C. Martindale makes an interesting point: "It has been said that Protestants are often better than their creed, and Catholics never so good as their own" (The Gates of the Church, from The Book of Catholic Quotations, ed. John Chapin, American Book-Stratford Press, New York; 1956, p. 116) .

JUSTIFICATION IS A TRANSFORMATION AND A PROCESS AND NOT A FORENSIC DECLARATION


Ezekiel 18:21-28 If the wicked man turns away from all the sins he committed, if he keeps all my statutes and does what is right and just, he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of the crimes he committed shall be remembered against him; he shall live because of the virtue he has practiced. Do I indeed derive any pleasure from the death of the wicked? says the Lord GOD. Do I not rather rejoice when he turns from his evil way that he may live? And if the virtuous man turns from the path of virtue to do evil, the same kind of abominable things that the wicked man does, can he do this and still live? None of his virtuous deeds shall be remembered, because he has broken faith and committed sin; because of this, he shall die. You say, "The LORD's way is not fair!" Hear now, house of Israel: Is it my way that is unfair, or rather, are not your ways unfair? When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity, and dies, it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if the wicked, turning from the wickedness he has committed, does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life; since he has turned away from all the sins that he committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Acts 2:42-47 They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers.Awe came upon everyone, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need. Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes. They ate their meals with exultation and sincerity of heart, praising God and enjoying favor with all the people. And every day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved. Romans 10:12-14 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentilethe same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. 14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 1 Corinthians 15:2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

1 Cor 1:17-25 Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the Gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing ,but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 2 Corinthians 2:15 For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing Ephesians 2:5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressionsit is by grace you have been saved. Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God Philippians 1:28 without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved and that by God. Titus 3:4-7 when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life 1 Timothy 2:14-16 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearingif they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety 2 Timothy 1:9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life 1 Peter 4:17-19 17For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And, If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?

The Justifications of Abraham by James Akin FROM http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/abraham.htm Contrary to the claims of much contemporary Protestant preaching, justification, like the other

aspects of salvation, has past, present, and future dimensions. This is shown by a variety of Bible passages, but especially by the Biblical discussion of the justification of Abraham. Contemporary Protestant preaching focuses mainly on the past dimension of justification. This aspect of justification is indicated in verses such as Rom 5:1 ("having been justified"), 5:9 ("having now been justified"), and 1Co 6:11 ("you were justified"). These passages show that justification is clearly a past event in the life of the believer. But there it also has present and future dimensions. For example, the future dimensions are found these verses: "For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." (Rom 2:13) "For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:20) Commenting on the second of these passages, British Bible scholar James D.G. Dunn points out that Paul's statement alludes to Psalm 142:2. He remarks, "The metaphor in the psalm is of a servant being called to account before his master, but in the context here [in Romans] the imagery of final judgment is to the fore . . . Against the view that Paul sees 'justification' simply as an act which marks the beginning of a believer's life, as a believer, here is a further example [in addition to 2:13] of the verb used for a final verdict, not excluding the idea of the final verdict at the end of life . . . "1 But even apart from such verses, we could deduce a future justification on theological grounds alone. Protestants place much emphasis on the declarative aspect of justification (i.e., God declaring one righteous) and they have places special emphasis on the legal/courtroom contexts in which this declaration may occur. However, the ultimate and final courtroom declaration concerning the believer does not occur until he stands before God (at his death and at the end of the world). So we may infer that the ultimate and final pronouncement of the believer as righteous does not lie in this life. We find the different temporal dimensions to justification illustrated very well in the life of Abraham. To begin with, Gen 15:6 clearly teaches us that Abraham was justified at the time he believed the promise concerning the number of his descendants. Paul confirms this when he quotes Genesis 15:6 to show that Abraham was justified at that time: "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness'" (Romans 4:2-3; see the parallel articles "The Works of the Law" and "Jewish and Christian Boasting in Romans" to understand the rest of this passage).

But if justification were a once-for-all event, rather than a process, that means Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6. However, Scripture indicates that he did both. First, the book of Hebrews tells us that "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go." (Heb 11:8) Every Protestant will passionately agree that the subject of Hebrews 11 is saving faith -- the kind that pleases God and wins his approval (Heb. 11:2, 6) -- so we know that Abraham had saving faith according to Hebrews 11. But when did he have this faith? The passage tells us: Abraham had it "when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive . . . " The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4--three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6. But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event. Abraham also received justification afterward Gen 15:6, for the book of James tells us, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 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." (Ja 2:21-23) James thus tells us "[w]as not our father Abraham justified . . . when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?" In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Abraham therefore received justification--that is, a fuller fruition of justification--when he offered Isaac.2 The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18--seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6. Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar. As a result, justification must be seen, not as a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer's life. This is something that many Protestants have recognized. For example, James D.G. Dunn, E.P. Sanders, and Dale Moody.3 Some of the early Reformers did as well. For example, the Swiss Reformer Martin Bucer regarded man as receiving a twofold justification. First he received the iustificatio impii, or primary justification, in which he was declared righteous before God, and then he received the iustificatio pii, or secondary justification, in which he was actually made to behave righteously.4 Even the very first Protestant of them all--Martin Luther--held justification to be a process as

well as a state. The well-known Luther scholar, Paul Althaus, summarizes Luther's position as follows: "Luther uses the terms 'to justify' . . . and 'justification' . . . in more than one sense. From the beginning [of Luther's writings], justification most often means the judgment of God with which he declares man to be righteous . . . . In other places, however, the word stands for the entire event though which a man is essentially made righteous (a usage which Luther also finds in Paul, Romans 5), that is, for both the imputation of righteousness to man as well as man's actually becoming righteous. Justification in this sense remains incomplete on earth and is first completed on the Last Day. Complete righteousness is in this sense is an eschatological reality. This twofold use of the word cannot be correlated with Luther's early and later theology; he uses 'justification' in both senses at the same time, sometimes shortly after each other in the same text."5 Luther himself wrote, "For we understand that a man who is justified is not already righteous, but moving toward righteousness."6 and "Our justification is not yet complete . . . . It is still under construction. It shall, however, be completed in the resurrection of the dead."7 We therefore see that, even though most Protestants deny that justification is a process as well as a state, many contemporary Protestant scholars, as some of the early Protestant Reformers, as well as the first Protestant of them all, recognized the justification was also a process.8 In this, they were in accord with the teaching of the Bible. ENDNOTES: 1. James Dunn, "Romans," Word Biblical Commentary, (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), vol. 38a, p. 153. 2. Protestants often object to this understanding of James 2, claiming that in that passage Abraham was said to be justified before men rather than before God. There are abundant exegetical reasons why this is not the case. Abraham was justified before God by offering Isaac, as will be shown later. But once the Protestant recognizes that the Bible teaches in Hebrews 11:8 that Abraham was already justified before he was justified in Genesis 15:6, there is not nearly so much motive to try to twist James 2:21-23 into meaning something else. Hebrews 11:8 already showed that justification is a process, and James 2:21-23 merely confirms that fact. 3. See Dunn, Commentary on Romans and Jesus, Paul, and the Law; Moody, The Word of Truth; Sanders, Paul and Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People and Paul and Palestinian Judaism; and Zeisler, Pauline Christianity. 4. See Martin Bucer, Metaphrasis et enarratio in epist. D. Pauli ad Romanos.

5. Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 226. 6. Luther's Works, 34, 52, cited in Althaus, p. 237, n. 63. 7. Weimarer Ausgabe, 391, 252, cited in Althaus, p. 237, n. 63. 8. I suspect that the process aspect of justification was more obvious to Luther than to English-speakers since none of his languages (German, Latin, Greek, Hebrew) had two sets of terms for justification/righteousness, as does English. It would thus be obvious to him that "to justify [to righteous]" a person can embrace more than simply legal righteousness

-----------------0000000------------------When was Abraham Justified? by Gary Hoge Is justification a one-time event in the life of a believer, or is it a process having a beginning, a middle, and an end? According to Presbyterian theologian Dr. D. James Kennedy, it is the former. He wrote that justfication is an act--not a process. It is done in the twinkling of the eye. In an instant, it is complete and perfect forever. [1] There are two problems with this view, though. The first is the fact that the Bible does not always present justification as a past-tense event. Instead, it presents justification in the past, present, and future tenses: Past justification: Since we have now been justified by his blood . . . (Rom. 5:9). Therefore, since we have been justified through faith . . . (Rom. 5:1). Present justification: If, while we seek to be justified in Christ . . . (Gal. 2:17). You who are trying to be justified by law . . . (Gal. 5:4). Future justification: For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Matt. 12:37, KJV). For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (Rom. 2:13, KJV).

The second biblical problem with the idea of a once-for-all justification is that according to the Bible, Abraham was justified on three separate occasions. The first is recounted in Hebrews, chapter 11, the Faith Hall of Fame: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval . . . by faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. (Heb. 11:1-2, 8-10). The Bible describes this in Genesis 12: Now the Lord said to Abram, . . . Go forth from your country, and from your relatives . . . I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you . . . So Abram went forth as the Lord had spoken to him. (Gen. 12:1, 2, 4). Abraham believed what the Lord had said, and by faith he went out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance. By faith, Abraham "gained approval" from God. In other words, he was justified at that time. Thats clear enough, isnt it? In Genesis 12-14, we see Abraham walking in obedience to God. He builds altars many times, and invokes the Lord by name; God gives him the promised land; Abraham fights the battles of the Lord and defeats the four kings and rescues his nephew Lot. In Genesis 14, Abraham worships God with Melchizedek who was a "priest of God Most High." Melchizedek blesses Abraham, and Abraham gives him a tenth of everything. All these good works, these acts of obedience, were done in faith before Genesis 15. Then, in Genesis 15, God said to Abraham, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them. So shall your offspring be" (Gen. 15:5). The Bible says, "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness." Now flash forward a few thousand years. The apostle Paul is attempting to refute the Judaizers, who said Gentile Christians must be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul wants to show that righteousness does not come by way of the ceremonial Law of Moses, but by faith in Christ: By the works of the Law [circumcision, etc.] no flesh will be justified in His sight . . . Now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested . . . even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe . . . Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law. (Rom. 3:20, 21, 27, 28). Its worth noting that Paul is not talking about Christian good works, hes talking about the outward works of the Mosaic Law. Paul always emphasizes the importance of good works, the "obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5), in contrast to the futility of the works of the ceremonial Law. He wrote, "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping Gods commands is

what counts" (1 Cor. 7:19). Now to make his point that righteousness (justification) comes by faith and not by circumcision (and therefore that the Gentile Christians do not need to be circumcised), he tries to show that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised: If Abraham was justified by works [i.e., circumcision], he has something to boast about; but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." . . . Is this blessing then upon the circumcised, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say, "Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness." How then was it reckoned? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be reckoned to them . . . For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law [i.e., through circumcision], but through the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:2-13). Now Paul says Abraham was justified in Genesis 15, but he does not say that this was the first time Abraham was justified. Indeed, it obviously was not the first time that Abrahams belief was credited to him as righteousness, because it was not the first time "Abraham believed the Lord" and acted in faith on that belief. Abraham was initially justified no later than Genesis 12 when he believed Gods promises and went out "by faith" to a new land, so his justification in Genesis 15 was a subsequent, further justification. The Bible also says that Abraham was justified yet again: But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected . . . You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. (James 2:20-24). The incident James describes happened in Genesis 22, fourteen years after Abraham was justified in Genesis 15. So the Bible tells us that Abraham was justified on each of these three different occasions. My question, then, for those who say that justification is "complete and perfect forever in an instant" is simply, when was Abraham justified? Was it in Gen. 12, Gen. 15, or Gen. 22? Catholics, who see justification as a process, would answer that he was initially justified in Gen. 12, and then further justified in Gen. 15 and Gen. 22. I really have no idea what the Protestant answer would be. Further, the Protestant definition raises the insuperable difficulty of having Paul say that Abraham was not justified by works, while James says that he was. In Catholic theology, Abraham, like the rest of us, was not initially justified by works, but years later, he increased in righteousness (justification) through his faith-filled works, by which his faith was made complete. These verses synthesize quite easily into Catholic theology, but they seem to be incompatible with the Protestant understanding of instantaneous justification. Martin Luther resolved this conflict by concluding that the God-breathed book of James was defective! He wrote, "This defect proves that the epistle [of James] is not of Apostolic provenance . . . He

[James] does violence to scripture and so contradicts Paul and all of scripture. . . . I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my Bible." [2] I assume that most of us do not feel we have the right to sit in judgment of the Scriptures, and that we must continue to accept the book of James as inspired. The Catholic resolution to this apparent conflict is to point out, as I did before, that James is not talking about the "works of the Law" that Paul is talking about in Romans; he is talking about Christian good works (e.g., seeing a "brother or sister without clothing and in need of daily food" (James 2:15) and doing something about it). There is no conflict between James and Paul, as Martin Luther thought, because they are not talking about the same kind of works. Paul said that the works of the Law (i.e., circumcision, etc.) are useless, and James would agree. James said that Christian good works, though, are necessary, and Paul would agree. Paul frequently exhorted people to be "rich in good deeds" in order to "lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life." (1 Tim. 6:17-19). End Notes 1. D. James Kennedy, Truths That Transform, (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1974), 73. 2. Martin Luther, quoted in John Dillenberger, John Calvin: Selections from His Writings, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1971), 3 ---------------------00000000000000000------------------------http://members.tripod.com/documentlibrary/id16.htm

There is also a Protestant misunderstanding of Paul when he says, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."(II Corthians 5:21). Here as with Isaiah Paul is using the phrase "to be sin for us" to mean the punishment and not the guilt of sin. This theology of imputed sinfulness as leas some popular tela-eveganelists to claim that after His death, Jesus went to hell and suffered its torments for three days. Yet the Bible is clear that Jesus, because He is God is pure righteous clean and holy, before, on and after the cross. This justification of Christ is to the Protestant mind causes no intrinsic change in the believer. Again we turn to Augustus Strong: Justification, as thus defined, is therefore a declarative act, as disguised from an efficient act; an act of God external to the sinner, as distinguished from an act within the sinners nature

and changing that nature; a judicial act, as distinguished from a sovereign act; an act based upon and logically presupposing the sinners union with Christ, as distinguished from an act which causes and is followed by union with Christ.10 The sinner is declared righteous even though he is not. At this point we need to note that in Protestant theology there is a distinction made between justification and sanctification. Justification is a one time event where by God declares the sinner righteous on the account of Christ. Sanctification, on the other hand is seen as an on going work of the Holy Spirit where the sinner becomes in reality what he had already been declared to be judicially. Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words explain that sanctification: ...is not vicarious, i.e., it cannot be transferred or imputed, it is an individual possession, built up, little by little, as the result of obedience to the Word of God, and following the example of Christ.11 This wall of separation between justification and sanctification cannot be adequately defended from Scripture, but it is necessary to preserve the doctrines of imputed justification and Sola fide. Catholic theology is opposed to Protestant theology in that it teaches that the repentant sinner is infused by the righteousness of Christ. Not by good works alone, but by faith demonstration its self in obedient love of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ not only died to made restitution to God the Father for our sins, but god farther filling or infusing us with His righteousness. In the Catholic view there is no separation between sanctification and justification. It is the blood of Christ that justifies and that same blood that sanctifies. Hebrews tells us: When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Hebrews 9:11-14) Here justification and sanctification are present as one in the same. No word is here about imputation, but instead it speaks of Christ, Who by His own blood presents Himself as a perfect and eternal sacrifice to the Father. A sacrifice which can cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man,"

justification entails the sanctification of his whole being. (CCC 1995)12 Justification in Catholic theology is not a one-time event, but an ongoing process. This is not a theology of works but of obedience. Paul tells us: But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 3:7-14) Yes righteousness is by faith, but faith that is "straining toward what is ahead." This righteousness, this justification before God is not something that is not imputed but infused into the soul of the believer. Again we here Paul speaking to the Philippians: And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ--to the glory and praise of God. (Philippians 1:9-11) Paul says that we are "filled" with the fruit of righteousness. The Catholic view sees Justification as a real and substantial change in the soul. It is not something that we gain or merit on our own. It is given to us, a precious gift wrought in the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. This justification is planed as a see in our soul at Baptism. Which is not just an "outward observance of an inward reality" as the Evangelicals say, but is a sacrament. Through the waters of Baptism the soul is infused with the righteousness of Christ. But we cant stop there. We have a responsibility to water and nurture that "seed" planted in us at Baptism. This is way the Church has always taught the necessity of works. Listen to Paul: But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing

good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism. (Romans 2:5-11) Paul here is pointing out that both the Jew and the Gentile are in equal standing before God. Far from teaching the "faith alone" view, Paul cites Psalm 62:12 that God will give to each person "according to what he has done." The Evangelical objects, "yes, but what we have done does only and can only merit us hell." But Paul continues, "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." Now if the imputed righteousness view were correct it would be imposable for Paul to say this. If we are only "covered" with the righteousness of Christ, then the Protestants are quite rites in saying that we can do nothing to please God. But if it is , as Paul says. " Christ in you, the hope of glory." (Colssians 1:27), then every good work that we do is in fact Christ working. It is Christ in us giving glory and honor and praise to the Father through our human vessels. A Trail or an Adoption? As stated the Protestant view of Justification is a legal process in which God declares the sinner to be righteous on the merits of Christ. Most certainly there are legal aspects to the Biblical view of justification, but the legal is only a part. Our justification in Christ must be seen in view of the covenant that He made with us. At the Last Supper Jesus said, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matthew 26:27b-29). Jesus words echoed the words of Moses in Exodus 24:8: Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." The blood that Moses offered instated the Old Covenant, in using Moses words Jesus was making it clear that His New Covenant was like that of Moses only His is superior and everlasting. A covenant is more than just a legal contract, but establishes a family relationship. We see this in our modern laws. When we buy something or enter into a legal agreement we sign a contract.

The signature on the contract binds both parties to do the things spelled out in the contract. But when we get married, we do not enter into a contract but a covenant. Marriage is not only a legal relationship, but also a family relationship. The man and woman, when pronounced husband and wife become family, in the eyes of the state and God. So in the New Covenant in Christs blood we become family, children of God. Therefore Paul tells us: Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of son ship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. (Romans 8:12-17) Notice what Paul says, "we have an obligation". Now notice what Paul does not say. He does not say anything about faith. He speaks in familial terms. We are now children of God, even "co-heirs with Christ". We call out to God, "Abba, Father". By the Blood of the New Covenant we have become children of God in a literal way. But as with any family, we have certain "obligations" as family members. The is clearly seen in the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-32). Jesus tells the story of a man with two sons. The younger son, fed up with his fathers rules demands his inheritance from his father and leaves home. He goes into another country where he squanders his wealth. After a while of eating and sleeping with the pigs Jesus says: When he came to his senses, he said, `How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.' So he got up and went to his father. (Luke 15:17-20)

This statement by the younger son is very important to notice. He sees that rejoining the family involves an obligation. If fact the whole parable is about family obligation. The young man leaves because he does not like the obligation to follow the rules of the father. At the end of the parable, the older brother gets angry at the Fathers acceptance of the younger into the family: Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. "Your brother has come," he replied, "and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.." The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and

pleaded with him. But he answered his father, "Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!" (Luke 15:25-30) The older son points out that he has followed the family obligation faithfully and he is angry because the father never threw him a party. Certainly, Jesus wants us to see the love of God in this story, but He also wants us to see our responsibility as family and children of God. The obligation to obey the Father. This is the bedrock of the Catholic theology of justification. The Father was happy with the younger son why? Because of his faith alone? No. Because he came back to him in obedient love. As members of Gods family we are under a family obligation to obey the Father. He in turn rewards us for our good works of obedience. Not as an employer making payment for work done. But as a loving Father who lavishes His gifts on His children, saying. "This is My child who was dead and is alive again, who was lost and now is found" (Luke 15:32)

SALVATION IS NOT ONLY BY FAITH BUT WORKS ARE ALSO NEEDED (FAITH WORKING THROUGH LOVE)THERE IS A REWARD FOR GOOD WORKS
Ezekiel 18:21-23, 26-27 If the wicked man turns away from all the sins he committed, if he keeps all my statutes and does what is right and just, he shall surely live, he shall not die. None of the crimes he committed shall be remembered against him; he shall live because of the virtue he has practiced. But if the wicked, turning from the wickedness he has committed, does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life; since he has turned away from all the sins that he committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Matthew 5:17-20 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 6:1 "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. Matthew 6:4 -so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. Matthew 6:14-15- For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. Matthew 6:18 so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. Matthew 7:21-26 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in Heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in

your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers." ("I never knew you" Jesus said to them. In the literal translation from the Greek text it reads more like, "you were never in complete union with God.") 24Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash Matthew 19:16-21 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " `Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and `love your neighbor as yourself.' " "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. (Note: If Jesus was going to teach justification by faith alone, this was His opportunity. The Evangelical would answer, "You cant do any thing to get eternal life. Just believe that Jesus dies for you and for your sins and accept Him as your personal Savior." ) Matthew 24:13 - "But he who endures to the end shall be saved." Matthew 25:14-39 -14 "It will be as when a man who was going on a journey 7 called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five talents; 8 to another, two; to a third, one--to each according to his ability. Then he went away. Immediately 16 the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five. 17 Likewise, the one who received two made another two. 18 9 But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master's money. 19 After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them. 20 The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. 10 He said, 'Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.' 21 His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.' 22 (Then) the one who had received two talents also came forward and said, 'Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.' 23 His master said to him, 'Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master's joy.' 24 Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, 'Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; 25 so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.' 26 His master said to him in reply, 'You wicked, lazy servant! 11 So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter? 27 Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could

have got it back with interest on my return? 28 Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten. 29 12 For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 13 And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.' 31 14 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, 32 and all the nations 15 will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.' 37 Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' 40 And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.' 41 17 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.' 44 18 Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' 45 He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' 46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Luke 3: 8-9 8 Produce good fruits as evidence of your repentance; and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 9 Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." Luke 12:33-47 - 33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Luke 19:11-22 11 While they were listening to him speak, he proceeded to tell a parable because he was near Jerusalem and they thought that the kingdom of God would appear there immediately. 12 So he said, "A nobleman went off to a distant country to obtain the kingship for himself and then to return. 13 He called ten of his servants and gave them ten gold coins 5 and told them, 'Engage in trade with these until I return.' 14 His fellow citizens, however, despised him and sent a delegation after him to announce, 'We do not want this man to be our king.' 15 But when he returned after obtaining the kingship, he had the servants called, to whom he had given the money, to learn what they had gained by trading. 16 The first came forward and said, 'Sir, your gold coin has earned ten additional ones.' 17 He replied, 'Well done, good servant! You have been faithful in this very small matter; take charge of ten cities.' 18

Then the second came and reported, 'Your gold coin, sir, has earned five more.' 19 And to this servant too he said, 'You, take charge of five cities.' 20 Then the other servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your gold coin; I kept it stored away in a handkerchief, 21 for I was afraid of you, because you are a demanding person; you take up what you did not lay down and you harvest what you did not plant.' 22 He said to him, 'With your own words I shall condemn you, you wicked servant. You knew I was a demanding person, taking up what I did not lay down and harvesting what I did not plant;23 why did you not put my money in a bank? Then on my return I would have collected it with interest.' 24 And to those standing by he said, 'Take the gold coin from him and give it to the servant who has ten.' 25 But they said to him, 'Sir, he has ten gold coins.' 26 'I tell you, to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. Romans 2: 6-16 God "will give to each person according to what he has done. 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism. 12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. Romans 10:10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. (So you need to act (confess)) 1 Corinthians 6:9 -10 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 1 Corinthians 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of

these is love. Gal. 5:6 - For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. Galatians 6:7 -10 Be not deceived: God is not mocked.. For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit of the spirit shall reap life everlasting. And in doing good, let us not fail. For in due time we shall reap, not failing. Therefore, whilst we have time, let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith. Ephesians 2:10 For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them. Philippians 2:12-13 12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose 1 Timothy 5:8 And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him Hebrews 12 14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord. James 1: 21-27 21 Therefore, put away all filth and evil excess and humbly welcome the word that has been planted in you and is able to save your souls. 22 Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror. 24 He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he looked like. 25 But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed in what he does. 26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, his religion is vain. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world James 2:14-26 14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? 17 So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you

from my works. 19 You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. 20 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? 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 the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." 24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? 26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. II Peter 1:5-7 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 1 John 2:10 Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him[ 2:10 Or it] to make him stumble. 1 John 3:11 This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 1 John 3:16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 1 John 3:23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 1 John: 3 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 1 John 4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 1 John 4:11-12 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. 1 John 4:20-21 20 If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother. 2 John 1:5 And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another.

James 1: 12 Blessed is the man who perseveres in temptation, for when he has been proved he will receive the crown of life that he promised to those who love him.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html Scripture 1. Good Works in Sanctifying Grace are Necessary for Salvation 2. We are not Guaranteed Salvation; We Hope for Salvation 3. Predestination and the "Elect" 4. Jesus' Teaching on Losing Salvation 5. Other Apostolic Teaching on Losing Salvation by our Own Choice 6. I Have Been Saved (past event) 7. I Am Being Saved (present event) 8. I Will Be Saved (future event) 9. I Save (by participating in Christ's salvific work) Tradition / Church Fathers 1. We are Saved by Faith and Works, and Not Faith Alone 2. We are not Once Saved, Always Saved Scripture I. Good Works in Sanctifying Grace are Necessary for Salvation Neh. 13:14, Psalm 11:7,28:4, Isa. 3:10, 59:18, Jer. 25:14, 50:29, Ezek. 9:10, 11:21, 36:19, Hos. 4:9, 9:15, 12:2, Sir. 16:12,14 - The 2,000 year-old Catholic position on salvation is that we are saved by Jesus Christ and Him alone (cf. Acts 15:11; Eph. 2:5). But by the grace of Christ, we achieve the salvation God desires for us through perseverance in both faith and works. Many Protestants, on the other hand, believe that one just has to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior to be saved, and good works are not necessary (they just flow from those already saved). But these verses, and many others, teach us that our performance of good works is necessary for our salvation. Scripture also does not teach that good works distinguish those who are eternally saved from those who are not saved. Sir. 35:19; Luke 23:41; John 3:19-21, Rom. 8:13, 2 Tim 4:14, Titus 3:8,14, Rev. 22:12 - these verses also teach us that we all will be judged by God according to our deeds. There is no distinction between the "saved" and the "unsaved." 1 Cor. 3:15 - if works are unnecessary for salvation as many Protestants believe, then why is a

man saved (not just rewarded) through fire by a judgment of his works? Matt. 7:1-3 - we are not judged just by faith, but actually how we judge others, and we get what we have given. Hence, we are judged according to how we responded to God's grace during our lives. Matt. 10:22, 24:13; Mark 13:13 - Jesus taught that we must endure to the very end to be saved. If this is true, then how can Protestants believe in the erroneous teaching of "Once saved, always saved?" If salvation occurred at a specific point in time when we accepted Jesus as personal Lord and Savior, there would be no need to endure to the end. We would already be saved. Matt. 16:27 Jesus says He will repay every man for what he has done (works). Matt. 25:31-46 - Jesus' teaching on the separation of the sheep from the goats is based on the works that were done during their lives, not just on their acceptance of Christ as Savior. In fact, this teaching even demonstrates that those who are ultimately saved do not necessarily have to know Christ. Also, we dont accept Christ; He accepts us. God first makes the decision to accept us before we could ever accept Him. Matt. 25:40,45 - Jesus says "Whatever you did to the least of my brothers, you did it to Me." We are judged and our eternal destiny is determined in accordance with our works. Mark 10:21 - Jesus says sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. This means that our salvation depends upon our works. Luke 12:43-48 - these verses teach us that we must act according to the Lord's will. We are judged based upon what we know and then do, not just upon what we know. Luke 14:14 Jesus says we are repaid for the works we have done at the resurrection of the just. Our works lead to salvation. Luke 23:41 - some Protestants argue that Jesus gave salvation to the good thief even though the thief did not do any good works. However, the good thief did in fact do a good work, which was rebuking the bad thief when he and others were reviling Jesus. This was a "work" which justified the good thief before Jesus and gained His favor. Moreover, we don't know if the good thief asked God for forgiveness, did works of penance and charity and was reconciled to God before he was crucified. Rom. 2:6-10, 13 - God will judge every man according to his works. Our salvation depends on how we cooperate with God's grace. 2 Cor. 5:10 - at the judgment Seat of Christ, we are judged according to what we have done in the body, not how much faith we had. 2 Cor. 9:6 Paul says that he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows

bountifully will also reap bountifully, in connection with Gods judgment. 2 Cor. 11:15 - our end will correspond to our deeds. Our works are necessary to both our justification and salvation. Gal. 6:7-9 whatever a man sows, he will reap. Paul warns the Galatians not to grow weary in doing good works, for in due season they will reap (the rewards of eternal life). Eph. 6:8 whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same again from the Lord. Col. 3:24-25 - we will receive due payment according to what we have done. Even so, Catholics recognize that such payment is a free unmerited gift from God borne from His boundless mercy. 1 Tim. 6:18-19 the rich are to be rich in good deeds so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed, that is, eternal life. 2 Tim. 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did Paul great harm, and Paul says the Lord will requite him for his deeds. Heb. 6:10 - God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for His sake. God rewards our works on earth and in heaven. Heb. 12:14 without holiness, no one will see the Lord. Holiness requires works of self-denial and charity, and does not come about simply by a profession of faith. 1 Peter 1:17 - God judges us impartially according to our deeds. We participate in applying the grace Jesus won for us at Calvary in our daily lives. Rev. 2:5 - Jesus tells the Ephesians they have fallen from love they used to have, and orders them to do good works. He is not satisfied with their faith alone. They need to do more than accept Him as personal Lord and Savior. Rev. 2:10 Jesus tells the church in Smyrna to be faithful unto death, and He will give them the crown of life. This is the faith of obedience to His commandments. Rev. 2:19 - Jesus judges the works of the Thyatirans, and despises their tolerance of Jezebel, calling them to repentance. Rev. 2:23 - Jesus tells us He will give to each of us as our works deserve. He crowns His own gifts by rewarding our good works. Rev. 2:26 - Jesus says he who conquers and keeps my works until the end will be rewarded in heaven. Jesus thus instructs us to keep his works to the very end. This is not necessary if we are "once saved, always saved."

Rev. 3:2-5,8,15 Jesus is judging our works from heaven, and these works bear upon our eternal salvation. If we conquer sin through faith and works, He will not blot our names out of the book of life. This means that works bear upon our salvation. Our works do not just deal with level of reward we will receive, but whether we will in fact be saved. Rev. 3:15 Jesus says, I know your works, you are neither cold nor hot. Because you are lukewarm, I will spew you out of my mouth. Jesus is condemning indifferentism, which is often based on our works. Rev. 14:13 - we are judged by the Lord by our works for their deeds follow them! Our faith during our life is completed and judged by our works. Rev. 20:12 the dead are judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. Rev. 22:12 Jesus says, Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay everyone for what he has done. Sirach 16:12,14 we are judged according to our deeds, and will receive in accordance with our deeds.

II. We are not Guaranteed Salvation; We Hope For Salvation Heb. 7:27, 9:12,26;10:10; 1 Pet 3:18 - Jesus died once and redeemed us all, but we participate in the application of His redemption by the way in which we live. Heb. 9:12 - Christ's sacrifice secured our redemption, but redemption is not the same thing as salvation. We participate in and hope for salvation. Our hope in salvation is a guarantee if we are faithful to Christ to the end. But if we lose hope and fail to persevere, we can lose our salvation. Thus, by our own choosing (not by God's doing), salvation is not a certainty. While many Protestant churches believe in the theology of "once saved, always saved," such a novel theory is not found in Scripture and has never been taught by the Church. Rom. 5:2 - we rejoice in the "hope" (not the presumptuous certainty) of sharing the glory of God. If salvation is absolutely assured after accepting Jesus as Savior, why would Paul hope? Rom. 5:5 - this "hope" does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit. Our hope is assured if we persevere to the end. Rom. 8:24 - this "hope" of salvation that Paul writes about is unnecessary if salvation is guaranteed. If salvation is assured, then why hope?

Rom. 10:1 - Paul prays that the Jews "may be saved." Why pray if it's guaranteed? Further, why pray unless you can mediate? Rom. 12:12 - rejoice in your "hope" (not your certainty), be patient in tribulation, and be constant in prayer. 2 Cor. 3:12 - since we have a "hope" (not a certainty), we are very bold. We can be bold when we are in Gods grace and our persevering in obedient faith. Gal. 5:5 - for through the Spirit by faith we wait for the "hope" (not the certainty) of righteousness. Eph. 1:18 - that you may know what is the "hope" to which He has called you, what are the riches of His glorious inheritance. Eph. 4:4 - there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one "hope" (not the one certainty) that belongs to your call. Eph. 6:10-17 Paul instructs the Ephesians to take the whole armor of God, the breastplate of righteousness, and the helmet of salvation, in order to stand, lest they fall. Paul does not give any assurance that the spiritual battle is already won. Phil. 3:11 - Paul shares Christ's sufferings so that "if possible" he may attain resurrection. Paul does not view his own resurrection as a certainty. Phil. 1:20 - as it is my eager expectation and "hope" (not certainty) that I shall not be at all ashamed before Christ. Col. 1:5 - Paul refers to the "hope" (not guarantee) that Christ laid up for us in heaven. Col. 1:23 - provided that you continue in the faith, not shifting from the "hope" of the gospel which you heard. Col. 1:27 - to them God chose to make known His mystery, which is Christ in you, the "hope" (not the certainty) of His glory. 1 Thess. 1:3 - remembering before our God your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of "hope" in Jesus Christ. 1 Thess. 2:19 - for what is our "hope" or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you? 1 Thess. 5:8 - we must put on the helmet of "hope" (not of certainty) of salvation. 2 Thess. 2:16 - the Lord Jesus and God our Father who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and

good "hope" through grace. 1 Tim. 1:1 - Paul describes Christ Jesus as our "hope" (not our guarantee). We can reject Him and He will allow this. 1 Tim. 4:10 - Paul says we toil and strive because we have our "hope" (not our assurance) on the living God. This is not because God is unfaithful, but because we can be unfaithful. We toil and strive for our salvation. 1 Tim. 5:5 - she who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her "hope" (not her assurance) on God. Our hope is a guarantee only if we persevere to the end. 1 Tim. 5:15 Paul writes that some have already strayed after satan, as God Himself tells us in 1 Tim. 4:1. They were on the right path, and then strayed off of it. 2 Tim. 2:10 - Paul endures for the elect so that they "may also obtain salvation." This verse teaches us that even the "elect, from the standpoint of human knowledge, have no guarantee of salvation. Titus 1:2 - Paul says that he is in the "hope" (not the certainty) of eternal life. Paul knows that his hope is a guarantee if he perseveres, but his ability to choose sin over God makes his attainment of eternal life less than an absolute certainty until it is actually achieved. Titus 2:13 - awaiting our blessed "hope," the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. Titus 3:7 - Paul says we have been given the Spirit so we might become heirs in the "hope" (not the certainty) of eternal life. Heb. 3:6 - we are Christ's house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our "hope" (not our certainty). Heb. 6:11 - we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of "hope" (not certainty) until the end. Heb. 6:18 - we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the "hope" (not the certainty) that is set before us. Heb. 6:19 - we have a "hope" that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone before us. Heb. 7:19 - on the other hand, a better "hope" (not certainty) is introduced, through which we draw near to God. Heb. 10:23 - let us hold fast the confession of our "hope" without wavering, for He who

promised is faithful. Heb. 11:1 - now faith is the assurance of things "hoped" for (not guaranteed), the conviction of things not seen (heaven). Heb. 12:1 let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us. Heb. 12:15 see to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no root of bitterness spring up and cause trouble, and by it many become defiled. James 1:12 - we must endure trial and withstand the test in order to receive the crown of life. It is not guaranteed. 1 Peter 1:3 - by His mercy we have been born anew to a living "hope" through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. 1 Peter 1:13 - set your "hope" (not assurance) fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 1:21 - through Him you have confidence in God, who raised him from the dead so that your faith and "hope" are in God. 1 Peter 2:2 - like newborn babes, long for spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation. How can you grow up to something you already possess? 1 Peter 3:15 - always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the "hope" that is in you. 1 John 3:3 - and everyone who thus "hopes" in Him purifies himself as He is pure. These verses teach us that we must cooperate with Gods grace and persevere to the end to be saved. We can and do have a moral certitude of salvation if we persevere in faith, hope and love.

III. Predestination and the "Elect" Eph. 1:5 - Paul teaches that God predestined us in love to be His sons through Jesus Christ. "Predestination" means that God knows what we will do before we do it (it does not mean that God determines what we do; otherwise, we would have no freewill). Predestination is taken from the Greek word "prooridzo" which means to know or declare in advance by Gods foreknowledge. See, for example, 1 Peter 1:2 where Peter writes about the elect according to the foreknowledge of God. The terms predestination and the elect always refer to Gods knowledge (not human knowledge) because God is outside of time (and humans cannot predict

the future). There are two types of "predestination," to grace and to glory. In this verse, Paul is teaching about predestination to grace, which means becoming a Christian. 1 Pet. 1:1-2 Paul teaches about being destined by God for obedience to Christ. This is another example of predestination to grace. But there is also predestination to glory. Rom. 8:29-30 Paul also writes that we are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. Now Paul is writing about predestination to glory, which means not only becoming a faithful Christian during our lives, but persevering to the end by conforming our will to Christ's will. 1 Cor. 15:49 Paul writes that we are conformed in His image at the resurrection, when we shall bear the image of the man of heaven. These are the people who were predestined to glory. Rev. 3:5 Jesus warns that He can blot out the names that are in the book of life. This refers to those currently, not ultimately, justified (those who are predestined to grace, but not to glory). Eph. 1:5; 1 Peter 1:2; Rom. 8:29-30; 1 Cor. 15:49 - therefore, predestination is either to grace (which we could lose) or to glory (which we cannot lose). As alluded to above, some non-Catholics confuse the definition of "predestination" (which means God knows what we will do before we do it) and "predetermination" (the erroneous belief that God determines what we will do). But God does not author evil. We choose evil by our own freewill. Ezek. 18:23-24, 32 - God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Our death is our freewill, failing to respond to His grace. God does not predetermine certain people to hell. God also does not predetermine certain "elect" people to heaven. We all, as God's children, have been given the grace we need to be saved, but we can decide to reject God's grace. 2 Peter 3:9 God is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. God wills all to be saved, but our salvation depends on our willingness to repent and receive Gods grace. Matt. 18:14 - Jesus says it is not the will of the Father that any of the children should perish. But He did not make us robots and respects the freewill He has given us. If we did not have this freewill, we would not be able to love, and if we would not be able to love, we would not have been created in God's image and likeness. Acts 10:35, 45 - these texts show that non-Christians can also be saved if they fear God, even though they haven't formally accepted Jesus as Savior at an altar call. They just do not have the fullness of the means of salvation. 1 Tim. 2:4 - God desires all men to be saved. But our freewill may choose to reject God's grace. In order for our gift of freewill not to be a sham, God must also give us the freedom to reject Him.

2 Pet. 3:9 - the Lord doesn't wish that any should perish, but come to full repentance. James 1:13-14 - God tempts no one. Each person is tempted by his own desire. God gives us freewill to cooperate with Him or reject Him. 1 Cor. 10:13 - God permits temptation, but does not author temptation. God also provides us sufficient grace to overcome any temptation. John 3:16-17 - God so loved the world He sent His Son, that the world might be saved (not that only the "elect" might be saved). John 4:42 - Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world (not just the Savior of the elect). Some will perish by their own choosing. Rom. 5:6,18 - Christ died for the ungodly (all of us), and His righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men (not just the elect). 2 Cor. 5:14-15 - Christ has died for all (not just the elect), that those who live might live for Him. 1 Tim. 2:6 - Jesus Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all (not just for the elect). But only those predestined to glory will be saved. 1 Tim. 4:10 - our hope is on the living God who is the Savior of all men (not just the elect). Titus 2:11 - for the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men (not just the elect). 1 John 2:2 - Christ is the expiation for the sins of the whole world (not just the elect). But not all are predestined to glory because of their own choosing. 1 John 4:14 - again, Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world (not just the Savior of the elect). Sir. 15:11-20 - salvation, a free gift, is ours to accept or reject. God's sovereignty includes our freewill. Our fate is predestined, but not predetermined.

IV. Jesus' Teaching on Losing Salvation Matt. 7:18 - Jesus says that sound trees bear good fruit. But there is no guarantee that a sound tree will stay sound. It could go rotten. Matt. 7:21 - all those who say "Lord, Lord" on the last day will not be saved. They are judged by their evil deeds. Matt. 12:30-32 - Jesus says that he who is not with Him is against Him, therefore (the Greek for "therefore" is "dia toutos" which means "through this") blasphemy against the Spirit will not be

forgiven. This means that failing to persevere in Jesus' grace to the end is the unforgivable sin against the Spirit. We must persevere in faith to the end of our lives. Matt. 22:14 - Jesus says many are called but few are chosen. This man, who was destined to grace, was at God's banquet, but was cast out. Luke 8:13 - Jesus teaches that some people receive the word with joy, but they have no root, believe for a while, and then fall away in temptation. They had the faith but they lost it. Luke 12:42-46 - we can start out as a faithful and wise steward, then fall away and be assigned to a place with the unfaithful. Luke 15:11-32 in the parable of the prodigal son, we learn that we can be genuine sons of the Father, then leave home and die, then return and be described as "alive again." John 6:70-71 - Jesus chose or elected twelve, yet one of them, Judas, fell. Not all those predestined to grace persevere to the end. John 15:1-10 - we can be in Jesus (a branch on the vine), and then if we don't bear fruit, are cut off, wither up and die. Paul makes this absolutely clear in Rom. 11:20-23. John 17:12 - we can be given to Jesus by the Father (predestined to grace) and yet not stay with Jesus, like Judas. John 6:37 - those who continue to come to Jesus He won't cast out. But it's a continuous, ongoing action. We can leave Jesus and He will allow this because He respects our freewill. John 6:39 - Jesus will not lose those the Father gives Him, but we can fall away, like Judas. God allows us not to persevere. John 6:40 - everyone who sees the Son and believes means the person "continues" to believe. By continuing to believe, the person will persevere and will be raised up. Belief also includes obedience, which is more than an intellectual belief in God. John 6:44 - Jesus says no one can come to me unless the Father "draws" him. This "drawing" is an ongoing process. John 10:27-28 - when Jesus says, "no one shall snatch them out of my hands," He does not mean we can't leave His hands. We can choose to walk away from Him. Rev. 2:4-5 Jesus tells the Ephesians that they abandoned the love they had at first and have fallen. Jesus warns them to repent and do the works they did at first, otherwise He will remove their lampstand (their awaited place in heaven). Rev. 3:4 - in Sardis, Jesus explained that some people received the white garment and soiled it

with sin. Rev. 3:5 - Jesus says whoever conquers will not be blotted out of the book of life (see Exodus 32:33). This means that we can be blotted out of the book of life. We can have salvation, and then lose salvation by our choice. Rev. 3:11 - Jesus says to hold fast to what we have, so that no one may seize our crown. Jesus teaches us that we can have the crown of salvation and lose it. Rev. 13:10; 14:12 - we are called from heaven for the endurance and faith of the saints, keeping the commandments and faith. Rev. 21:7 - we must conquer in order to share in our heritage and become a true son of Jesus. Rev. 22:19 - we can have a share in the tree of life in God's holy city and yet have that share taken away from us.

V. Other Apostolic Teaching on Losing Salvation by our Own Choice Acts 7:51 - you stiff-necked people, you always resist the Holy Spirit. We, by our own freewill, can resist God and His grace, and turn away from Him. Rom. 11:20-23 in expounding on Jesus teaching in John 15, Paul teaches that the Jews (the natural branches) were broken off by lack of faith (v.20), but says that the Romans stand fast through faith (v. 21). So the Romans are justified. However, Paul then says that the Romans can also be cut off if they dont persevere in faith and kindness (v. 22-23). Hence, those justified before God can fall away from the faith and lose their salvation (be cut off). Paul also says that those who are cut off can be grafted back in if they do not persist in their unbelief, for God has the power to graft them in again (v.23). These verses are devastating to the once saved, always saved position. 1 Cor. 9:24-27 Paul says that all the runners compete, but only one wins the prize. Paul recognizes that if he doesnt train himself properly in perseverance, he too can become disqualified. The word "disqualified" comes from the Greek word "adokimos" which literally means cut off from Christ, or reprobate. When adokimos is used in the Scriptures, it always refers to those who are to be condemned by God. It has nothing to do with going to heaven with less rewards. See, for example, Rom. 1:28; Titus 1:16; 2 Tim. 3:8; Heb. 6:8; 2 Cor. 13:5-7. This proves that Saint Paul thought he could lose his salvation. No one would reasonably argue that Paul wasnt saved when he wrote the Scriptures. So if Saint Paul thought that he could lose his salvation, why do many Protestants think that they cannot lose theirs?

1 Cor. 9:24 Paul says that only one wins the prize (brabeion). To further prove that the race Paul is writing about refers to our journey to heaven, brabeion always has a soteriological implication. See, for example, Phil. 3:14 where prize refers to the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (which is heaven). 1 Cor. 9:25 Paul writes about achieving the imperishable (aphthartos) wreath. Again, to further prove Paul is writing about salvation, aphthartos always refers to the eternal. See, for example, 1 Cor. 15:51 (the only other place in NT Scripture where aphthartos appears relative to humans) where Paul says the dead will be raised imperishable. This refers to the resurrection of our salvation. See also 1 Tim. 1:17 where the King of ages is called immortal (imperishable). Rom. 13:11 for salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. If we already have salvation, then how can we only be nearer to it? 1 Cor. 4:4 - Paul says he is not aware of anything against himself, but he is still not acquitted. Paul is not presumptuous about his salvation. Only the Lord is our Judge. 1 Cor. 6:9-11 - we can be washed, sanctified, and justified, yet Paul still warns us that we can be deceived and become unrighteous. 1 Cor. 10:6-13 the passage is about how the Israelites, once justified before God, fell away from God. Therefore, let anyone who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall (v.12). You can be standing in God's grace, and then fall away. But God will always provide enough grace to overcome the temptation (v.13). 1 Cor. 15:1-2 - we can be believers (predestined to grace) but believe in vain. Scripture refutes the novel Protestant theory "once saved, always saved." 2 Cor. 6:1 - we can receive the grace of God (predestined to grace) in vain. We can choose not to cooperate with His grace. 2 Cor. 11:2-3 Paul writes, I betrothed you to Christ, but I am afraid that your thoughts will be led astray from a devotion to Christ. The Corinthians already had a sincere devotion to Christ, for Paul wrote to them earlier in the letter, you stand firm in your faith. (2 Cor. 1:24). They are already saved. But Paul warns them that they can fall away just like Eve fell away (and, remember, Eve was created without sin!) This is another verse that is devastating to the belief of once saved, always saved. Gal. 1:8-9 Paul says, if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel to that which we preached to youlet him be accursed. Paul says if we, which means he believed even the sacred writers (currently saved) could fall away from the true faith and teach a heretical gospel. Gal. 4:9 Paul asks those who know God how they can now turn back again to the weak and

beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves they once were. Paul acknowledges and warns of this possibility. Gal. 5:1 Paul writes that the Galatians are free in Christ, but warns them to stand fast, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. You cannot be severed from Christ if you were never connected to Christ. This warning applies to those who are connected to Christ in faith. Gal. 5:4 - Paul teaches that we can be in Christ, then be severed from Him and fall away from God's grace. You cannot be severed from something unless you were previously connected to it. Phil. 2:12 - we cannot assume salvation. We need to work it out to the end with fear and trembling. If "once saved, always saved" were true, why would the great apostle Paul have to work his salvation out in fear and trembling? What is there to fear if salvation is assured? Phil. 3:11-14 Paul writes that if possible, he may attain the resurrection, says he is not perfect, and presses on toward the prize of salvation. Paul has no presumption of salvation but works it out in fear and trembling. Col. 1:21-23 - we have now been reconciled in His body to be presented holy and blameless, provided we continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which we heard. Paul warns them that it is possible to turn away and lose hope in the gospel. Col. 2:18-19 - a man puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind has lost the connection with Jesus. He had the connection and lost it. 1 Tim. 1:5-6 - some people have wandered away from a sincere faith, a pure heart and a good conscience. They had a sincere (not a fake) faith, and still fell away. 1 Tim. 1:19-20 - Paul tells Timothy to hold fast to the faith, and not shipwreck it like Alexander and Hymenaeus. They had it, and then they lost it. 1 Tim. 4:1 - the Spirit "expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons." God Himself is telling us that some people who had the faith will lose the faith. 1 Tim. 5:8 - if we do not provide for our relatives, we have disowned the faith (we had the faith, and we lost it). 1 Tim. 5:15 Paul says that some have already turned away and gone after Satan. There is never any distinction between falling away from a true faith versus a false faith. 1 Tim. 6:10 - for the love of riches we may wander from the faith (we had the faith, and we can lose the faith). Heb. 2:1 - we must pay closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. We

have it, but we can drift away from it. Heb. 3:12 the author warns the Hebrews to take care, lest there be in any one of you an evil heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. We can be with God, and choose to fall away from Him. Heb. 3:13-14 the author warns the Hebrews that they need to exhort one another every day, so that none of them may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. Paul teaches that we share in Christ, but only if we hold our first confidence firm to the end. Heb. 4:1 - while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it. There would be nothing to fear if salvation were assured. Heb. 4:6,11 - we can receive the good news (predestined to grace) and then disobey it and fall away. The author thus exhorts us to strive to enter that rest, that no one falls by the same sort of disobedience. Heb. 6:4-6 - those who have been enlightened and partakers of the Holy Spirit (predestined to grace) can fall away, commit apostasy and crucify the Son of God. Heb. 10:23-29 - we can sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth (predestined to grace) and then face a fury of fire. Heb. 10:26 - if we continue to sin after knowing truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin - our salvation is jeopardized. Heb. 10:35 - we can have confidence in salvation (predestined to grace), and then throw it away. We can have it, and lose it. Heb. 10:36: - we have the need of endurance, so that we may do the will of God and receive what is promised. There is no need for endurance to get what is promised if salvation is assured. Heb. 10:38-39 the author says that the righteous live by faith, but can shrink back. He then exhorts the people not to shrink back and be destroyed, but to keep their souls. James 5:19-20 - we can be in the truth, and then wander from the truth which means death, unless we are brought back. 1 Peter 1:14 Peter warns that, as obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance. Thus, you can first be ignorant, then receive the truth and become obedient, and later revert back to the passions of your former ignorance. 2 Peter 2:1 - we can be bought by Christ, and then become false teachers of destructive heresies and destroy ourselves.

2 Peter 1:10 we must be zealous to confirm our call and election; for if we do this we will never fall. But Peter is saying that it is possible to fall, without zeal and perseverance. 2 Peter 2:15 forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing. They had the right way, and then chose to forsake it. 2 Peter 2:20-22 - we can escape the defilements of the world through Jesus (predestined to grace) and then become entangled again therein. 2 Peter 3:16-17 - we can be the beloved of God and then lose our stability and carried away with the error of lawless men. 1 John 1:7 - if we walk in the light, the blood of Jesus cleanses us. But we need continual cleansing, and can walk out of the light. 1 John 1:9 - if we confess our sins, Jesus will forgive them and cleanse us. But we need continual cleansing. Growing in holiness is a lifelong process. 1 John 2:19 - "they left, but didn't not belong to us" refers to those who were Christians who did not persevere and were thus not predestined to glory. 1 John 2:28 - we must abide in Him so we have confidence and don't shrink in shame. If we fail to abide, we are lost. 2 John 8 - look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for. You can lose the grace you currently have. Jude 6 - even some of the angels, who beheld the face of God, fell. How much more could we fall? Gen. 3:6 - Adam and Eve, who were already living the divine life of supernatural grace, fell away from God. Is falling more possible for us? Ezek. 3:20; 18:24; 33:12,13,18 the Lord clearly teaches us in these verses that a righteous man can turn away from his righteousness and commit iniquity. He was righteous (there is nothing about having phony righteousness), but he fell away and chose unrighteousness. When he does, his prior good deeds shall be forgotten, and he shall die. SOME VERSES PROTESTANTS USE TO PROVE ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED 2 Tim. 4:8 Protestants often use this verse to prove once saved, always saved, even in the face of all Paul wrote about the possibility of losing his salvation (including his). But it is only at end of Saint Paul's life that he has a moral certitude of salvation. This is after a lifetime of perseverance. As faithful believers in Christ, we indeed have a moral certitude of our salvation,

but this is different from being certain of our salvation. We must persevere throughout our lives, and can choose to fall away. Also, Catholics have more assurance of salvation that those who espouse once saved, always saved. This is because the only distinction between a true Christian and a superficial Christian is that the superficial Christian will not persevere to the end but this is something a Christian cannot know during his life, and this necessarily imposes uncertainty upon him until the end. For Catholics, we know that salvation is ours to lose. For once saved, always saved Protestants, they dont even know whether it is theirs to begin with. Rom. 11:29 the gifts and the call of our God our irrevocable. Some Protestants use this to prove once saved, always saved. But this verse has nothing to do with our response to salvation. It deals with Gods unmerited gifts and call to us. Moreover, if a person is in the elect, then his salvation is irrevocable. But we can never know if we are in the elect during our lives (the elect only deals with Gods knowledge). Rom. 14:4 and he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand. This is another verse Protestants use to prove once saved, always saved. But the verse speaks only to what God is able to do. It does not address what the person is free to do (accept Gods grace or reject it). Phil. 1:6 I am sure that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. Protestants also use this verse to prove once saved, always saved. But Protestants wouldnt argue that the whole Philippi church was saved, so this statement must be qualified. In fact, Paul does qualify it in Phil. 2:13 when he warns them to work out their salvation in fear and trembling, and in Phil. 3:11-14 when he writes that if possible, he may obtain the resurrection, and that he has not yet received the prize (of salvation). Moreover, the verse tells us what God will do (He will give all the grace to bring us to completion), but says nothing about our cooperation with Gods grace. Phil. 4:3 some Protestants point to this verse about names which are in the book of life. Indeed, because God knows the future, He knows who will persevere (the elect). These are the people whose names are in the book of life. But Jesus in Rev. 3:5 warns us that He can blot our names out of the book of life if we fail to persevere. Col. 3:23-24 work heartily as serving the Lord, not men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. This is another verse used to prove once saved, always saved. But the verse says our inheritance depends on working heartily. Its not just a matter of accepting Christ as Savior, but working heartily in perseverance. If we persevere, then we will indeed receive the inheritance as our reward. 2 Tim. 1:12 But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Another verse proving once saved, always saved? Of course not. Paul is writing about the Revelation of faith with which God has entrusted him, and specifically that God will preserve his ability to teach the faith until the end of

his life (see v. 13 where Paul then exhorts Timothy to safeguard this deposit of faith as well). 2 Tim. 4:18 the Lord will rescue me from every evil and save me for his heavenly kingdom. Again, this verse demonstrates Gods faithfulness to us, but Gods ability to save us also depends upon our cooperation. God preserves His elect, but only He knows who are His elect by His foreknowledge. 1 Peter 1:3-5 Peter says we are born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ and to an inheritance which is imperishable, who by Gods power are guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. No Protestant, however, would argue that all of northern Asia Minor (to whom the letter was addressed) was saved. The verse simply sets forth the tautology that Gods elect are saved (by Gods grace and the elects perseverance), but only God knows who are His elect. 1 John 5:18 John writes that anyone born of God does not sin (this, of course, doesnt say or prove anything about salvation). This is an example of proverbial literature which John uses frequently. For example, see 1 John 1:8 if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. Proverbial literature tries to make a point by using an absolute, even though the absolute is necessarily qualified (here, as seen by 1 John 1:8 which seemingly contradicts 1 John 5:18). Psalm 37:28 For the Lord loves justice; He will not forsake His saints. The righteous shall be preserved forever, but the children of the wicked shall be cut off. Again, this verse shows that God will give the graces necessary for the elect to persevere. Thus, they will be preserved. But the verse says nothing about how we can ever know who is among Gods elect. Psalm 121:3,7-8 He will not let your foot be moved, He who keeps you will not slumber. The Lord will keep you from all evil; He will keep your life. The Lord will keep your going out and your coming in from this time forth and forever more. This is another example of proverbial literature about how God will preserve His elect. But this also depends upon human cooperation. The verse is about how faithful God will be, not how faithful we will be. Jer. 32:40 God will make them an everlasting covenant, that He will not turn away from doing good to them; and He will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. This is another verse which describes the faithfulness of God and how He, through His grace, causes the elect to persevere to the end. But there are never any teachings in Scripture about how we know whether we are part of Gods elect.

VI. I Have Been Saved (past event) Rom. 8:24 - for in this hope we were saved (but, again, why "hope" if salvation is a certainty?) Eph. 2:5,8 - for by grace you have been saved through faith.

2 Tim. 1:9 - He saved us and called us through grace and not by virtue of our own works outside of His grace. Titus 3:5 - He saved us in virtue of His own mercy, and not by our deeds.

VII. I Am Being Saved (present event) 1 Cor. 1:18 - for the word of the cross is folly to those perishing, but for to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. Salvation is not a one-time event. It is a process of perseverance through faith, hope and love. 2 Cor. 2:15 - for we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved. Salvation is a continual process. Phil. 2:12 - we are working out our salvation through fear and trembling. Salvation is an ongoing process. 1 Peter 1:9 - you obtain the salvation of your souls as the outcome of your faith. Working out our salvation in fear and trembling is a lifelong process.

VIII. I Will Be Saved (future event) Matt. 10:22, 24:13; Mark 13:13 - again, Jesus taught that we must endure to the very end to be saved. Salvation is a past, present and future event (not a one-time event at an altar call). Mark 16:16 Jesus says whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. Acts 15:11 - we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus. Rom. 5:9-10 - since we are justified by His blood, we shall be saved. Rom. 13:11 - salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. How can we be only nearer to something we already have? 1 Cor. 3:15 - he will be saved, but only as through fire. 1 Cor. 5:5 - Paul commands the Church to deliver a man to satan, that he will be saved in the day of the Lord. 2 Tim. 2:11-12 - if we endure, we shall also reign with Him. This requires endurance until the end of our lives. Heb. 9:28 - Jesus will appear a second time to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him.

James 5:15 - the sacrament of the sick will save the sick man and the Lord will raise him up.

IX. I Save (by participating in Christ's salvific work) Rom. 11:13-14 - I magnify my ministry to make the Jews jealous and thus save some of them. Paul says that he is the one doing the saving, but he really means that he participates in Christ's work of salvation. 1 Cor. 7:16 - Paul indicates that a wife can save her husband and vice versa. We are lesser mediators in Christ's salvific work. 1 Cor. 9:22 - Paul says he has become all things to men that he might save some. Only God saves, but His children participate in their salvation. 1 Tim. 4:16 - you will save both yourself and your hearers. Christ is the only Savior, but He wants us to participate, for we are members of His body. James 5:20 - whoever brings back a sinner will save his soul from death. We are saviors in the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 22-23 - we are instructed to save some people, by snatching them out of the fire. We participate in our salvation and in the salvation of others. Prov. 16:6 - by love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for. We can participate in Christ's atonement through our love and faith.

Tradition / Church Fathers I. We are Saved by Faith and Works, and Not Faith Alone Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. 'For God,' saith [the Scripture], 'resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.' Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words." Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 30 (A.D. 98). "For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?" Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 31 (A.D. 98). "All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their

own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 32 (A.D. 98). "Now I beseech thee, by the grace with which thou art clothed, to add [speed] to thy course, and that thou ever pray for all men that they may be saved, and that thou demand things which are befitting, with all assiduity both of the flesh and spirit. Be studious of unity, than which nothing is more precious. Bear with all men, even as our Lord beareth with thee. Show patience with all men in love, as [indeed] thou doest. Be steadfast in prayer. Ask for more understanding than that which thou [already] hast. Be watchful, as possessing a spirit which sleepeth not. Speak with every man according to the will of God. Bear the infirmities of all men as a perfect athlete; for where the labour is great, the gain is also great." Ignatius of Antioch, To Polycarp, 1 (A.D. 110). "Look ye to the bishop, that God also may look upon you. I will be instead of the souls of those who are subject to the bishop, and the presbyters, and the deacons; with them may I have a portion in the presence of God! Labour together with one another, act as athletes together, run together, suffer together, sleep together, rise together. As stewards of God, and of His household, and His servants, please Him and serve Him, that ye may receive from Him the wages promised. Let none of you be rebellious. Let your baptism be to you as armour, and faith as a spear, and love as a helmet, and patience as a panoply. Let your treasures be your good works, that ye may receive the gift of God, as is just. Let your spirit be long-suffering towards each other with meekness, even as God is toward you. As for me, I rejoice in you at all times." Ignatius of Antioch, To Polycarp, 6 (A.D. 110). "For he who keepeth these shall be glorified in the kingdom of God; but he who chooseth other things shall be destroyed with his works." Epistle of Barnabas, 2 (A.D. 132). "But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, falsewitness; 'not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing,' or blow for blow, or cursing for cursing, but being mindful of what the Lord said in His teaching: 'Judge not, that ye be not judged; forgive, and it shall be forgiven unto you; be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again; and once more, "Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.'" Polycarp, To the Philippians, 2 (A.D. 135). "They only who fear the Lord and keep His commandments have life with God; but as to those who keep not His commandments, there is no life in them." Shepherd of Hermas, 2 Comm 7 (A.D. 155). "But those who do not keep his commandments, flee from his life, and despise him. But he has his own honour with the Lord. All, therefore, who shall despise him, and not follow his

commands, deliver themselves to death, and every one of them will be guilty of his own blood. But I enjoin you, that you obey his commands, and you will have a cure for your former sins." Shepherd of Hermas, 3 Sim 10:2 (A.D. 155). "We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power...But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 6 (A.D. 155). "On this account also Paul the Apostle says to the Corinthians, 'Know ye not, that they who run in a racecourse, do all indeed run, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. Every one also who engages in the contest is temperate in all things: now these men that they may obtain a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. But I so run, not as uncertainty; I fight, not as One beating the air; but I make my body livid, and bring it into subjection, lest by any means, when preaching to others, I may myself be rendered a castaway.' This able wrestler, therefore, exhorts us to the struggle for immortality, that we may be crowned, and may deem the crown precious, namely, that which is acquired by our struggle, but which does not encircle us of its own accord (sed non ultro coalitam)." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:7 (A.D. 180). "But do you also, if you please, give reverential attention to the prophetic Scriptures, and they will make your way plainer for escaping the eternal punishments, and obtaining the eternal prizes of God. For He who gave the mouth for speech, and formed the ear to hear, and made the eye to see, will examine all things, and will judge righteous judgment, rendering merited awards to each. To those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek immortality, He will give life everlasting, joy, peace, rest, and abundance of good things, which neither hath eye seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive. But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men. Since you said, "Show me thy God," this is my God, and I counsel you to fear Him and to trust Him." Theophilius of Antioch, To Autolycus, I:14 (A.D. 181). "'And other sheep there are also,' saith the Lord, 'which are not of this fold '--deemed worthy of another fold and mansion, in proportion to their faith. 'But My sheep hear My voice,' understanding gnostically the commandments. And this is to be taken in a magnanimous and worthy acceptation, along with also the recompense and accompaniment of works. So that when we hear, 'Thy faith hath saved thee, we do not understand Him to say absolutely that those who have believed in any way whatever shall be saved, unless also works follow. But it was to the Jews alone that He spoke this utterance, who kept the law and lived blamelessly, who wanted only faith in the Lord. No one, then, can be a believer and at the same time be licentious; but

though he quit the flesh, he must put off the passions, so as to be capable of reaching his own mansion." Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, 6:14 (A.D. 202). "[T]hus by the grace of the Saviour healing their souls, enlightening them and leading them to the attainment of the truth; and whosoever obtains this and distinguishes himself in good works shall gain the prize of everlasting life... But others rightly and adequately comprehend this, but attaching slight importance to the works which tend to salvation, do not make the requisite preparation for attaining to the objects of their hope." Clement of Alexandria, Who is the rich man that shall be saved?, 1,2 (A.D. 210). "[T]he apostolic teaching is that the soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall, after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this." Origen, First Principles, Preface 5 (A.D. 230). "Whoever dies in his sins, even if he profess to believe in Christ, does not truly believe in Him, and even if that which exists without works be called faith, such faith is dead in itself, as we read in the Epistle bearing the name of James." Origen, Commentary on John, 19:6 (A.D. 232). "And in like manner, the Gentiles by faith in Christ prepare for themselves eternal life through good works." Hippolytus, Commentary on Proverbs (ante A.D. 235). "He, in administering the righteous judgment of the Father to all, assigns to each what is righteous according to his works....the justification will be seen in the awarding to each that which is just; since to those who have done well shall be assigned righteously eternal bliss, and to the lovers of iniquity shall be given eternal punishment. And the fire which is un-quenchable and without end awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which dieth not...But the righteous will remember only the righteous deeds by which they reached the heavenly kingdom, in which there is neither sleep, nor pain, nor corruption" Hippolytus, Against Plato, 3 (ante A.D. 235). "For both to prophesy and to cast out devils, and to do great acts upon the earth is certainly a sublime and an admirable thing; but one does not attain the kingdom of heaven although he is found in all these things, unless he walks in the observance of the right and just way. The Lord denounces, and says, 'Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name have cast out devils, and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.' There is need of righteousness, that one may deserve well of God the Judge; we must obey His precepts and warnings, that our merits may receive their reward." Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, 16 (A.D. 251). "You must pray more eagerly and entreat; you must spend the day in grief; wear out nights in watchings and weepings; occupy all your time in wailful lamentations; lying stretched on the ground, you must cling close to the ashes, be surrounded with sackcloth and filth; after losing the raiment of Christ, you must be willing now to have no clothing; after the devil's meat, you must

prefer fasting; be earnest in righteous works, whereby sins may be purged; frequently apply yourself to almsgiving, whereby souls are freed from death. What the adversary took from you, let Christ receive; nor ought your estate now either to be held or loved, by which you have been both deceived and conquered. Wealth must be avoided as an enemy; must be fled from as a robber; must be dreaded by its possessors as a sword and as poison. To this end only so much as remains should be of service, that by it the crime and the fault may be redeemed. Let good works be done without delay, and largely; let all your estate be laid out for the healing of your wound; let us lend of our wealth and our means to the Lord, who shall judge concerning us. Thus faith flourished in the time of the apostles; thus the first people of believers kept Christ's commands: they were prompt, they were liberal, they gave their all to be distributed by the apostles; and yet they were not redeeming sins of such a character as these." Cyprian, On the Lapsed, 35 (A.D. 251). "You therefore, who are rich and wealthy, buy for yourself of Christ gold tried by fire; that you may be pure gold, with your filth burnt out as if by fire, if you are purged by almsgiving and righteous works. Buy for yourself white raiment, that you who had been naked according to Adam, and were before frightful and unseemly, may be clothed with the white garment of Christ. And you who are a wealthy and rich matron in Christ's Church, anoint your eyes, not with the collyrium of the devil, but with Christ's eye-salve, that you may be able to attain to see God, by deserving well of God, both by good works and character." Cyprian, Works and Almsgiving, 14 (A.D. 252). "For this reason He has given us this present life, that we may either lose that true and eternal life by our vices, or win it by virtue." Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 7:5 (A.D. 310). "But our faith thus teaches, that when men fall asleep, they sleep this slumber without knowing good from evil. And the righteous look not forward to their promises, nor do the wicked look forward to their sentence of punishment, until the Judge come and separate those whose place is at His right hand from those whose place is at His left. And be thou instructed by that which is written, that when the Judge shall sit, and the books be opened before Him and the good and evil deeds recited, then they that have wrought good works shall receive good rewards from Him Who is good; and they that have done evil deeds shall receive evil penalties from the just Judge... But hear, my beloved, this proof that retribution shall take place at the end. For when the Shepherd divides His flock and sets some on His right hand and some on His left. until He shall have acknowledged the service of the good, then He will cause them to inherit the kingdom; and until He shall have rebuked the evil and they are condemned, then He will send them to the torment." Aphrahat, Select Demonstrations, 8:21 (A.D. 345). "Terrible in good truth is the judgment, and terrible the things announced. The kingdom of heaven is set before us, and everlasting fire is prepared. How then, some one will say, are we to escape the fire? And how to enter into the kingdom? I was an hungered, He says, and ye gave Me meat. Learn hence the way; there is here no need of allegory, but to fulfil what is said. I was an hungered, and ye gave Me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took Me in; naked, and ye clothed Me; I was sick, and ye visited Me; I was in prison, and ye came unto Me. These things if thou do, thou shall reign together with Him; but if thou do them

not, thou shalt be condemned. At once then begin to do these works, and abide in the faith; lest, like the foolish virgins, tarrying to buy oil, thou be shut out." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 15:26 (A.D. 350). "We shall be raised therefore, all with our bodies eternal, but not all with bodies alike: for if a man is righteous, he will receive a heavenly body, that he may be able worthily to hold converse with Angels; but if a man is a sinner, he shall receive an eternal body, fitted to endure the penalties of sins, that he may burn eternally in fire, nor ever be consumed. And righteously will God assign this portion to either company; for we do nothing without the body. We blaspheme with the mouth, and with the mouth we pray. With the body we commit fornication, and with the body we keep chastity. With the hand we rob, and by the hand we bestow alms; and the rest in like manner. Since then the body has been our minister in all things, it shall also share with us in the future the fruits of the past. Therefore, brethren, let us be careful of our bodies, nor misuse them as though not our own. Let us not say like the heretics, that this vesture of the body belongs not to us, but let us be careful of it as our own; for we must give account to the Lord of all things done through the body. Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures, 18:19,20 (A.D. 350). Say not, none seeth me; think not, that there is no witness of the deed. Human witness oftentimes there is not; but He who fashioned us, an unerring witness, abides faithful in heaven, and beholds what thou doest. And the stains of sin also remain in the body; for as when a wound has gone deep into the body, even if there has been a healing, the scar remains, so sin wounds soul and body, and the marks of its scars remain in all; and they are removed only from those who receive the washing of Baptism. The past wounds therefore of soul and body God heals by Baptism; against future ones let us one and all jointly guard ourselves, that we may keep this vestment of the body pure, and may not for practicing fornication and sensual indulgence or any other sin for a short season, lose the salvation of heaven, but may inherit the eternal kingdom of God; of which may God, of His own grace, deem all of you worthy. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:19,20 (A.D. 350). "For it is not productive of virtue, nor is it any token of goodness. For none of us is judged for what he knows not, and no one is called blessed because he hath learning and knowledge. But each one will be called to judgment in these points--whether he have kept the faith and truly observed the commandments." Athanasius, Life of Antony, 33 (A.D. 362). "'O Lord, my heart is not exalted, neither have mine eyes been lifted up.' This Psalm, a short one, which demands an analytical rather than a homiletical treatment, teaches us the lesson of humility and meekness. Now, as we have in a great number of other places spoken about humility, there is no need to repeat the same things here. Of course we are bound to bear in mind in how great need our faith stands of humility when we hear the Prophet thus speaking of it as equivalent to the performance of the highest works: O Lord, my heart is not exalted. For a troubled heart is the noblest sacrifice in the eyes of God. The heart, therefore, must not be lifted up by prosperity, but humbly kept within the bounds of meekness through the fear of God." Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on the Psalms, 130/131:1 (A.D. 365). "Now we have a woven work, when faith and action go together. Let none suppose me to be

misguided, in that I made at first a threefold division, each part containing four, and afterwards a fourfold division, each part containing three terms. The beauty of a good thing pleases the more, if it be shown under various aspects. For those are good things, whereof the texture of the priestly robe was the token, that is to say, either the Law, or the Church, which latter hath made two garments for her spouse, as it is written'--the one of action, the other of spirit, weaving together the threads of faith and works.... Faith is profitable, therefore, when her brow is bright with a fair crown of good works. This faith--that I may set the matter forth shortly--is contained in the following principles, which cannot be overthrown." Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, II:11, 13 (A.D. 380). "Then, in the tenth place, work that which is good upon this foundation of dogma; for faith without works is dead, even as are works apart from faith. This is all that may be divulged of the Sacrament, and that is not forbidden to the ear of the many. The rest yon shall learn within the Church by the grace of the Holy Trinity; and those matters you shall conceal within yourself, sealed and secure." Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 45 (A.D. 381). "Innocence, then, and knowledge make a man blessed. We have also noted already that the blessedness of eternal life is the reward for good worksRejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.' And again: 'He that will come after Me, let him take up his cross and follow Me.'" Ambrose, Duties of the Clergy, 3:9 (c. A.D. 391). "'Is it then enough,' saith one,' to believe on the Son, that one may have eternal life?' By no means. And hear Christ Himself declaring this, and saying, "Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. vii. 21); and the blasphemy against the Spirit is enough of itself to cast a man into hell. But why speak I of a portion of doctrine? Though a man believe rightly on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yet if he lead not a right life, his faith will avail nothing towards his salvation." John Chrysostom, Homilies on John, 31:1 (A.D. 391). "You had a wife, the apostle says, when you believed. Do not fancy your faith in Christ to be a reason for parting from her. For 'God hath called us in peace.' 'Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God.' Neither celibacy nor wedlock is of the slightest use without works, since even faith, the distinguishing mark of Christians, if it have not works, is said to be dead, and on such terms as these the virgins of Vesta or of Juno, who was constant to one husband, might claim to be numbered among the saints." Jerome, To Pammachius, Epistle 48:6 (A.D. 393). "Paul, joining righteousness to faith and weaving them together, constructs of them the breastsplates for the infantryman, armoring the soldier properly and safely on both sides. A soldier cannot be considered safely armored when either shield is disjoined from the other. For faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation; neither, however, is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith." Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on Ecclesiastes, 8 (A.D. 394).

"And he who has not this love, 'though he speak with the tongues of men and angels, is sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal; and though he have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and though he have all faith, so that he can remove mountains, he is nothing; and though he bestow all his goods to feed the poor, and though he give his body to be burned, it profiteth him nothing.' How great a good, then, is that without which goods so great bring no one to eternal life! But love or charity itself,--for they are two names for one thing,--if he have it that does not speak with tongues, nor has the gift of prophecy, nor knows all mysteries and all knowledge, nor gives all his goods to the poor, either because he has none to give or because some necessity hinders, nor delivers his body to be burned, if no trial of such a suffering overtakes him, brings that man to the kingdom, so that faith itself is only rendered profitable by love, since faith without love can indeed exist, but cannot profit. And therefore also the Apostle Paul says, 'In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by love:' so distinguishing it from that faith by which even 'the devils believe and tremble.' Love, therefore, which is of God and is God, is specially the Holy Spirit, by whom the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by which love the whole Trinity dwells in us. And therefore most rightly is the Holy Spirit, although He is God, called also the gift of God. And by that gift what else can properly be understood except love, which brings to God, and without which any other gift of God whatsoever does not bring to God?" Augustine, On the Trinity, 15:18,32 (A.D. 416). "According to the Catholic faith we believe this also, that after grace has been received through baptism, all the baptized with the help and cooperation of Christ can and ought to fufill what pertains to the salvation of the soul, if they will labor faithfully." Council of Orange II, Predestination (A.D. 529). "They acknowledge that they know God, but in deeds they deny Him (Tit. i. 16). And John says, He that saith that he knows Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar (1 John ii. 4). James also, the brother of the Lord, writes saying, Faith without works is dead (Jam. ii. 20). If, then, believers now are not saved without good works, while the unbelieving and reprobate without good action were saved by our Lord descending into hell, then the lot of those who never saw the incarnation of the Lord was better than that of these who have been born after the mystery of His incarnation." Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], To George (Presbyter), Epistle 15 (A.D. 591). "If good life is wanting, faith has no merit, as the blessed James attests, who says, Faith without works is dead (Jam; ii. 18)." Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], To Theoderic, Epistle 110 (A.D. 591). "The remission of sins, therefore, is granted alike to all through baptism: but the grace of the Spirit is proportional to the faith and previous purification. Now, indeed, we receive the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit through baptism, and the second birth is for us the beginning and seal and security and illumination s of another life. It behoves as, then, with all our strength to steadfastly keep ourselves pure from filthy works, that we may not, like the dog returning to his vomit, make ourselves again the slaves of sin. For faith apart from works is dead, and so likewise are works apart from faith. For the true faith is attested by works." John Damascene, Orthodox

Faith, 9 (A.D. 743).

II. We are not Once Saved, Always Saved "And pray ye without ceasing in behalf of other men; for there is hope of the repentance, that they may attain to God. For 'cannot he that falls arise again, and he may attain to God.'" Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 10 ( A.D. 110). "Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ye ready, for ye know not the hour in which our Lord cometh. But often shall ye come together, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if ye be not made perfect in the last time." Didache, 16 (A.D. 90). "And as many of them, he added, as have repented, shall have their dwelling in the tower. And those of them who have been slower in repenting shall dwell within the walls. And as many as do not repent at all, but abide in their deeds, shall utterly perish...Yet they also, being naturally good, on hearing my commandments, purified themselves, and soon repented. Their dwelling, accordingly, was in the tower. But if any one relapse into strife, he will be east out of the tower, and will lose his life." Hermas, The Shephard, 3:8:7 (A.D. 155). "[T]hat eternal fire has been prepared for him as he apostatized from God of his own free-will, and likewise for all who unrepentant continue in the apostasy, he now blasphemes, by means of such men, the Lord who brings judgment [upon him] as being already condemned, and imputes the guilt of his apostasy to his Maker, not to his own voluntary disposition." Justin Martyr, fragment in Irenaeus' Against Heresies, 5:26:1 (A.D. 156). "Now, in the beginning the spirit was a constant companion of the soul, but the spirit forsook it because it was not willing to follow. Yet, retaining as it were a spark of its power, though unable by reason of the separation to discern the perfect, while seeking for God it fashioned to itself in its wandering many gods, following the sophistries of the demons. But the Spirit of God is not with all, but, taking up its abode with those who live justly, and intimately combining with the soul, by prophecies it announced hidden things to other souls." Tatian the Syrian, To the Greeks, 13 (A.D. 175). "Christ shall not die again in behalf of those who now commit sin, for death shall no more have dominion over Him; but the Son shall come in the glory of the Father, requiring from His stewards and dispensers the money which He had entrusted to them, with usury; and from those to whom He had given most shall He demand most. We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom. And therefore it was that Paul said, 'For if [God] spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest He also spare not thee, who, when thou wert a wild olive tree, wert grafted into the fatness of the olive tree, and wert made a partaker of its fatness.'" Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:27:2 (A.D. 180).

"But some think as if God were under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy, what He has engaged (to give); and they turn His liberality into slavery. But if it is of necessity that God grants us the symbol of death, then He does so unwilling. But who permits a gift to be permanently retained which he has granted unwillingly? For do not many afterward fall out of (grace)? Is not this gift taken away from many?" Tertullian, On Repentance, 6 (A.D. 204). "Confession is the beginning of glory, not the full desert of the crown; nor does it perfect our praise, but it initiates our dignity; and since it is written, 'He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved,' whatever has been before the end is a step by which we ascend to the summit of salvation, not a terminus wherein the full result of the ascent is already gained." Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 21 (A.D. 251). "Therefore, my beloved, we also have received of the Spirit of Christ, and Christ dwelleth in us, as it is written that the Spirit said this through the month of the Prophet: --I will dwell in them and will walk in them. Therefore let us prepare our temples for the Spirit of Christ, and let us not grieve it that it may not depart from us. Remember the warning that the Apostle gives us:--Grieve not the Holy Spirit whereby ye have been sealed unto the day of redemption. For from baptism do we receive the Spirit of Christ ... And whatever man there is that receives the Spirit from the water (of baptism) and grieves it, it departs from him until he dies, and returns according to its nature to Christ, and accuses that man of having grieved it." Aphrahat, Demonstrations, 6:14 (A.D. 345). "Thou art made partaker of the Holy Vine. Well then, if thou abide in the Vine, thou growest as a fruitful branch; but if thou abide not, thou wilt be consumed by the fire. Let us therefore bear fruit worthily. God forbid that in us should be done what befell that barren fig-tree, that Jesus come not even now and curse us for our barrenness." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, I:4 (A.D. 350). "It is the Spirit then which is in God, and not we viewed in our own selves; and as we are sons and gods because of the Word in us, so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and we shall be accounted to have become one in Son and in Father, because that that Spirit is in us, which is in the Word which is in the Father. When then a man falls from the Spirit for any wickedness, if he repent upon his fall, the grace remains irrevocably to such as are willing; otherwise he who has fallen is no longer in God (because that Holy Spirit and Paraclete which is in God has deserted him), but the sinner shall be in him to whom he has subjected himself, as took place in Saul's instance; for the Spirit of God departed from him and an evil spirit was afflicting him." Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, 3:25 (A.D. 362). "Clerics who are guilty of the sin unto death are degraded from their order, but not excluded from the communion of the laity." Basil, To Amphilochius, Letter 199:32 (A.D. 375). "This temple is holier than that; for it glistened not with gold and silver, but with the grace of the Spirit, and in place of the ark and the cherubim, it had Christ, and His Father, and the Paraclete seated within. But now all is changed, and the temple is desolate, and bare of its former beauty and comeliness, unadorned with its divine and unspeakable adornments, destitute of all security

and protection; it has neither door nor bolt, and is laid open to all manner of soul-destroying and shameful thoughts; and if the thought of arrogance or fornication, or avarice, or any more accursed than these, wish to enter in there is no one to hinder them; whereas formerly, even as the Heaven is inaccessible to all these, so also was the purity of thy soul." John Chrysostom, To the Fallen Theodore, Letter 1 (A.D. 378). "But these sins were not after Baptism, you will say. Where is your proof? Either prove it--or refrain from condemning; and if there be any doubt, let charity prevail. But Novatus, you say, would not receive those who lapsed in the persecution. What do you mean by this? If they were unrepentant he was right; I too would refuse to receive those who either would not stoop at all or not sufficiently, and who would refuse to make their amendment counterbalance their sin; and when I do receive them, I will assign them their proper place; but if he refused those who wore themselves away with weeping, I will not imitate him." Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration on the Holy Lights, 39:19 (A.D. 381). "Let us admonish each other. Let us correct each other, that we may not go to the other world as debtors, and then, needing to borrow of others, suffer the fate of the foolish virgins, and fall from immortal salvation." John Chrysostom, Concerning Statues, 21 (A.D. 387). "Some offences are light, some heavy. It is one thing to owe ten thousand talents, another to owe a farthing. We shall have to give account of the idle word no less than of adultery; but it is not the same thing to be put to the blush, and to be put upon the rack, to grow red in the face and to ensure lasting torment. Do you think I am merely expressing my own views? Hear what the Apostle John says: 'He who knows that his brother sinneth a sin not unto death, let him ask, and he shall give him life, even to him that sinneth not unto death. But he that hath sinned unto death, who shall pray for him? 'You observe that if we entreat for smaller offences, we obtain pardon: if for greater ones, it is difficult to obtain our request: and that there is a great difference between sins.'" Jerome, Against Jovianus, 2:30 (A.D. 393). "And, consequently, both those who have not heard the gospel, and those who, having heard it and been changed by it for the better, have not received perseverance, and those who, having heard the gospel, have refused to come to Christ, that is, to believe on Him, since He Himself says, 'No man cometh unto me, except it were given him of my Father,' and those who by their tender age were unable to believe, but might be absolved from original sin by the sole layer of regeneration, and yet have not received this laver, and have perished in death: are not made to differ from that lump which it is plain is condemned, as all go from one into condemnation." Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace, 12 (A.D. 427). "The faith of these, which worketh by love, either actually does not fail at all, or, if there are any whose faith fails, it is restored before their life is ended, and the iniquity which had intervened is done away, and perseverance even to the end is allotted to them. But they who are not to persevere, and who shall so fall away from Christian faith and conduct that the end of this life shall find them in that case, beyond all doubt are not to be reckoned in the number of these, even in that season wherein they are living well and piously. For they are not made to differ from that mass of perdition by the foreknowledge and predestination of God, and therefore are not called

according to God's purpose, and thus are not elected. Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace, 16 (A.D. 427). "It is, indeed, to be wondered at, and greatly to be wondered at, that to some of His own children--whom He has regenerated in Christ--to whom He has given faith, hope, and love, God does not give perseverance also." Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace, 18 (A.D. 427). "Let the inquirer still go on, and say, 'Why is it that to some who have in good faith worshipped Him He has not given to persevere to the end?' Why except because he does not speak falsely who says, 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, doubtless they would have continued with us.' Are there, then, two natures of men? By no means. If there were two natures there would not be any grace, for there would be given a gratuitous deliverance to none if it were paid as a debt to nature. But it seems to men that all who appear good believers ought to receive perseverance to the end. But God has judged it to be better to mingle some who would not persevere with a certain number of His saints, so that those for whom security from temptation in this life is not desirable may not be secure." Augustine, On the Gift of Perseverance, 19 (A.D. 429). "The manifold mercy of God so assists men when they fall, that not only by the grace of baptism but also by the remedy of penitence is the hope of eternal life revived, in order that they who have violated the gifts of the second birth, condemning themselves by their own judgment, may attain to remission of their crimes, the provisions of the Divine Goodness having so ordained that Gods indulgence cannot be obtained without the supplications of priests. For the Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, has transmitted this power to those that are set over the Church that they should both grant a course of penitence to those who confess, and, when they are cleansed by wholesome correction admit them through the door of reconciliation to communion in the sacraments." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], To Theodore, Epistle 108:2 (A.D. 452). "The branches of the vine. Thus there are branches in the vine, not that they may bestow anything upon the vine, but that they may receive from it the means by which they may live...And by this it is an advantage to the disciples, not to Christ, that each have Christ abiding in him, and that each abide in Christ. For if the branch is cut off, another can sprout forth from the living root; but that which has been cut off, cannot live without the root." Council of Orange, Canon 24 (A.D. 529). "And they who mourn their transgressions certainly cast forth by confession the wickedness with which they have been evilly satiated, and which oppressed the inmost parts of their soul; and yet, in recurring to it after confession, they take it in again. But the sow, by wallowing in the mire when washed, is made more filthy. And one who mourns past transgressions, yet forsakes them not, subjects himself to the penalty of more grievous sin, since he both despises the very pardon which he might have won by his weeping, and as it were rolls himself in miry water; because in withholding purity of life from his weeping he makes even his very tears filthy before the eyes of God." Pope Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], Pastoral Rule, 30 (A.D. 591). "The remission of sins, therefore, is granted alike to all through baptism: but the grace of the

Spirit is proportional to the faith and previous purification. Now, indeed, we receive the first fruits of the Holy Spirit through baptism, and the second birth is for us the beginning and seal and security and illumination s of another life. It behooves as, then, with all our strength to steadfastly keep ourselves pure from filthy works, that we may not, like the dog returning to his vomit, make ourselves again the slaves of sin. For faith apart from works is dead, and so likewise are works apart from faith. For the true faith is attested by works." John of Damascus, On the Orthodox Faith, 4:9 (A.D. 743).

WHO HAS REAL FAITH?


John 13:35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 14:15-16, If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always. Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him. Those who do not love me do not keep my words John 15:10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Fathers commands and remain in his love Rom 8:8-17 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God...........we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him. 2 Corinthians 13:5 "Examine yourselves to see if your faith is really genuine. Test yourselves. If you cannot tell that Jesus Christ is among you (or in you), it means you have failed the test." Galatians 5;6 For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love Ephesians 1:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power towards us, who believe according to the operation of the might of his power 1 John 1: 6-10 6 If we say, "We have fellowship with him," while we continue to walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say, "We are without sin," we deceive ourselves, 3 and the truth is not in us. 9 If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing. 10 If we say, "We have not sinned," we make him a liar, and his word is not in us 1 John 2:1-10, 15-20, 29 My children, 1 I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one. 2 He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world. 3 The way we may be sure 2 that we know him is to keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says, "I know him," but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him: 6 whoever claims to abide in him ought to live (just) as he lived. 7 3 Beloved, I am writing no new commandment to you but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard. 8 And yet I do write a new commandment to you, which holds true in him and

among you, 4 for the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining. 9 Whoever says he is in the light, yet hates his brother, is still in the darkness. 10 Whoever loves his brother remains in the light, and there is nothing in him to cause a fall. 11 Whoever hates his brother is in darkness; he walks in darkness and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes. 15 Do not love the world or the things of the world. 7 If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, sensual lust, 8 enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 Yet the world and its enticement are passing away. But whoever does the will of God remains forever. 18 Children, it is the last hour; 9 and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; 10 if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number 24 Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made us: eternal life. 26 I write you these things about those who would deceive you. 27 As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him. 14 And now, children, remain in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not be put to shame by him at his coming29 If you consider that he is righteous, you also know that everyone who acts in righteousness is begotten by him 1 Jn 2:15-16 Do not love the world or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, sensual lust, enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world. 1 John 3: 2-9 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,[1] we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure. 4Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him. 7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 1 John 3:10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. 1 John 3:17 If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?

1 John 4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 1 John 4:20 If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 1 John: 3 18-24 18 Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 19This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence 20whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. 23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

From http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/1241/OSAS.html THE MEANING OF BELIEVE John 3:36 - "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.". ~ Note: This obviously is true, but most people don't know what the word believe means. We get our English word for believe from 3 different Greek words that I know of. "Pisteou" means "believe," but it also means "be committed unto." Therefore, this believing in Jesus Christ is not a one-time deal and it's all over with. You must be committed unto Him or else you are no longer a believer. To be or not to be, that is the question. "Pisteuo" also means "used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul." That means when we believe in Jesus Christ, His power within us drives us to have a distinctively superior advantage of having our souls obey His moral law. Other times, the word "believe" comes from these words. "Pistos" more than anything means "faithful," and "phulasso" means "keep" or "guard." The phrase "who believe" in Eph. 1:19 is in the sense of continuous action of it. God's great power of our final redemption will work not in those who once upon a time believed in Jesus Christ, but to those who continue to believe in Him. The words "not believe" here in this Scripture John 3:36, and in Romans 15:31, come from the Greek word "apeitheo." It means "be disobedient" or "not to comply with." ~ So we must KEEP believing and obeying Christ with a faithful, continuous action to be a true believer. So yes, believers have everlasting life, but if one walks away from obeying God and living a godly life by no longer being committed to Him, he is NO LONGER A TRUE BELIEVER.

ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED? NO, SALVATION CAN BE LOST


Ezequiel 18; 24 And if the virtuous man turns from the path of virtue to do evil, the same kind of abominable things that the wicked man does, can he do this and still live? None of his virtuous deeds shall be remembered, because he has broken faith and committed sin; because of this, he shall die. Mathew 10: 1 32-33 32 Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. 33 But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father. Mathew 24: 11-13 - 11 Many false prophets will arise and deceive many; 12 and because of the increase of evildoing, the love of many will grow cold.13 But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved Mathew 24:42-51 Jesus said to his disciples: "Stay awake! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come.Be sure of this: if the master of the house had known the hour of night when the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and not let his house be broken into. So too, you also must be prepared, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come. "Who, then, is the faithful and prudent servant, whom the master has put in charge of his household to distribute to them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master on his arrival finds doing so. Amen, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property. But if that wicked servant says to himself, My master is long delayed,' and begins to beat his fellow servants, and eat and drink with drunkards, the servant's master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth." Mathew 25: 1-13 1 "Then 2 the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 3 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones, when taking their lamps, brought no oil with them, 4 but the wise brought flasks of oil with their lamps. 5 Since the bridegroom was long delayed, they all became drowsy and fell asleep. 6 At midnight, there was a cry, 'Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!' 7 Then all those virgins got up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.' 9 But the wise ones replied, 'No, for there may not be enough for us and you. Go instead to the merchants and buy some for yourselves.' 10 While they went off to buy it, the bridegroom came and those who were ready went into the wedding feast with him. Then the door was locked. 11 Afterwards the other virgins came and said, 'Lord, Lord, open the door for us!' 12 But he said in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.' 13 Therefore, stay awake, 5 for you know neither the day nor the hour. Luke 12:35-47 - 33 -35 "Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, 36 like

men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. 37 It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. 38 It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the second or third watch of the night. 39 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40 You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him." 41 Peter asked, "Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?" 42 The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. 47 That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. John 5:13-14 The man who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped away, since there was a crowd there. After this Jesus found him in the temple area and said to him, "Look, you are well; do not sin any more, so that nothing worse may happen to you." John 15: 1-15 1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower. 2 He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit, and everyone that does he prunes 3 so that it bears more fruit. 3 You are already pruned because of the word that I spoke to you. 4 Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing. 6 Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. 8 By this is my Father glorified, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples. 9 As the Father loves me, so I also love you. Remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and remain in his love. Romans 1:18 -32 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men

are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 3:8 Why not say--as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved. Romans 5:15 5What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.19I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! Romans 8: 12-13 12 Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, Romans 11:16-22 -16 If the first fruits are holy, so is the whole batch of dough; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place and have come to share in the rich root of the olive tree,18 do not boast against the branches. If you do boast, consider that you do not support the root; the root supports you.19 Indeed you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."20 That is so. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith.

So do not become haughty, but stand in awe.21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, (perhaps) he will not spare you either.22 See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. 1 Corinthians 3:16,17 - Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 9:25-27- Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air. 27No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize. 1 Corinthians 10:12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall! 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain Gal 5:18-25 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also follow the Spirit. Ephesians 5:3-6 Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones,no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving.5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.[1] 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions 1 Timothy 5:8 And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members

has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 2 Timothy 2:11-13 11 This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with him we shall also live with him; 12 if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us. 13 If we are unfaithful he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself Hebrews 3: 12-14 Take care, brothers and sisters, that none of you may have an evil and unfaithful heart, so as to forsake the living God. Encourage yourselves daily while it is still "today," so that none of you may grow hardened by the deceit of sin. We have become partners of Christ if only we hold the beginning of the reality firm until the end. Hebrews 6: 4-8 4 For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit. 5 and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves 4 and holding him up to contempt.7 Ground that has absorbed the rain falling upon it repeatedly and brings forth crops useful to those for whom it is cultivated receives a blessing from God.8 But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is rejected; it will soon be cursed and finally burned Hebrews 10:26-29 - 26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? Hebrews 12: 15 See to it that no one be deprived of the grace of God, that no bitter root spring up and cause trouble, through which many may become defiled, 16 that no one be an immoral or profane person like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that later, when he wanted to inherit his father's blessing, he was rejected because he found no opportunity to change his mind, even though he sought the blessing with tears. Colossians 1:22,23 - But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight -- if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel.. 1 Thessalonians 3:5 - For this reason, when I could no longer endure it, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter had tempted you, and our labor might be in vain 1 Thessalonians 3:8 - For now we live, if you stand fast in the Lord 2 Thessalonians 2:3 - Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day (the return of Christ) will not come unless the falling away comes first

1 Timothy 1:5-7 - ... sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm 1 Timothy 3:6 - He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil James 1:12 Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. James 1:14-15 Rather, each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire conceives and brings forth sin, and when sin reaches maturity it gives birth to death 2 Peter 2:20-21 20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 2 Peter 3:17,18 - You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, BEWARE LEST YOU ALSO FALL from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen. ~ Note: This clearly proves that "OSAS" IS WRONG. To "fall from" also means "to LOSE it, to perish, to fall powerless, be without effect of the divine promise of salvation."

http://www.rcec.london.on.ca/MWatsonArchive.htm

Salvationcan you lose it? Q Im glad I found your web page. It has been very insightful about many issues in the Catholic faith. I had a couple of questions concerning salvation. I am not a Catholic yet, but I have been studying the Catholic faith and was wondering about issues concerning salvation and if it is possible to lose it. I also wanted to know how Matthew 12:31 and Hebrews 6:4-8 is interpreted in Catholicism. Many Protestants say it is not possible to lose it once a person is justified. I have been trying to find these answers for some time and would greatly appreciate it if you could respond to my questions. Take care and God bless. R.R.

A. Thank you very much for your e-mail, and for your interest in the Catholic faith. I am glad to hear that you are taking the time and effort to investigate it for yourself. I myself became a Catholic as an adult, and I believe that you will find in Catholicism a rich faith and a way of life that is challenging, comforting and can ultimately lead you deeper in your relationship with God. The questions you have raised touch on the very foundation of our faith: the issue of salvation and justification, and throughout history they have been the source of some unfortunate arguments, particularly during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Essentially, we believe that Christ has redeemed all peoplehis death and resurrection has paid the price for the sins of all humanity, and he offers eternal life to everyone. God intends for all people to be saved. However, God has also created human beings with free choice: he does not force us to accept his offer if we do not want to. Therefore, we make an important distinction between redemption and salvation (being saved). To be saved, a person must accept Christs redemption and live in faithfulness to his teachings. We remain able to accept or reject Christ and his redemption until the moment of our death. Therefore, Catholics believe that it is possible for a Christian to lose their salvation (but also for someone who has lost their salvation to find it againit works both ways!) Whatever decision we make, God will not force us to love him if we truly do not want to. God, however, never turns his back on any of his children, and is always waiting eagerly to welcome us back. The state of ones eternal salvation is never permanently fixed until the final decision we make at the time of our death, for or against God. This is evident from the Acts of the Apostles and the many letters of St. Paul, in which we see that many disciples who initially accepted Christ and were baptized in him later rejected him and lost their salvation. (This is the true meaning of the passage you mentioned from Hebrews 6:4-6) That initial choice must be renewed constantly in our livesthat is how Jesus can say, ...the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. (Matt 24:13) And St. Paul reminds us that our salvation is something that is lived out day by day, rather than achieved on a single occasion: ...Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:12) The fear and trembling reflect our uncertainty as to what our final decision will be. We must remain humble and live lives centred on Christ, rather than becoming self-assured (this is a great temptation that the devil can prey on, since it is rooted in pride). The second part of your question concerned Matthew 12:31, and its interpretation in the Catholic Church: Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Since the very early days of Christianity, great writers have taught that the only sin which God cannot forgive is the refusal by a human being to accept His forgiveness. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1864, puts it this way: There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation which the Holy Spirit offers. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.Basically, it is not that the sin is beyond Gods power, but that he cannot force us to receive that forgiveness. God cannot crack through the shell of a sinner who is not open to receive him. These are big, important questions, and I cannot possibly do justice to them in such a short reply. I encourage you to pick up a paperback copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (usually available in the religion section of bookstores for $8-10). You will find a much more thorough treatment of salvation, redemption and justification there. With my prayers,

Father Murray

from http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/1241/

True, God will never leave us nor forsake us IF WE CONTINUE to believe and follow Christ, but one can definitely leave Him if one chooses. He gave us a free will. Even though we have the Holy Spirit who convicts us of sin, one can still rebel against God and lose the Holy Spirit and stay lost. SO BEWARE, BECAUSE ONE CAN LOSE THEIR SALVATION. Don't believe it when people say that you are eternally secure. They preach a license to sin, and that is not what the gospel is about. God's word will give you the truth, and if you abide in that truth, He will set you free from the bondage of sin (John 8:31-36). Even though Jesus' death is the sacrifice for our sins, we cannot continue to willfully sin. If we do, there NO LONGER REMAINS a sacrifice for sins (Hebrews 10:26). If one walks away from God and starts practicing sin again, God's word says that one is DEAD and LOST (Luke 15:24). If "Once Saved, Always Saved" was true then we could all go out and get drunk all the time, and beat each other up, and not care about what we did.

WE MUST LIVE A HOLY LIFE BUT IF WE SIN, WE CAN BE FORGIVEN


1 Peter 1:22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. 1 John 2:1-My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defenseJesus Christ, the Righteous One. 1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all[ 1:7 Or every] sin. James 5:15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven

IN HIS LETTERS PAUL IS TALKING ABOUT THE LAW OF THE JEWS BEING USELESS AND PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE EXTERNAL ACTS (WORKS) OF THE LAW LIKE CIRCUMCISION
Romans 2:12-29 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth-- 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."[2] 25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[3] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. 28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God. Romans 3 :1- 30 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.3What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? 4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."[1] 5But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8Why not say--as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say--"Let us do

evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved. 9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[2] ? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."[3] 13"Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit."[4] "The poison of vipers is on their lips."[5] 14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."[6] 15"Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16ruin and misery mark their ways, 17and the way of peace they do not know."[7] 18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."[8] 19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[9] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[1] 4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."[2] 9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is also the father of

the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. 13It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. 16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring--not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."[3] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were. 18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be."[4] 19Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead--since he was about a hundred years old--and that Sarah's womb was also dead. 20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." 23The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

---------------------------000000000000000000----------------------------Explanation: The Works of the Law by James Akin from http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/work-law.htm

Romans 3:20 is the first occurrence of the expression "works of the Torah" (Gk., ergon nomou) in Paul. This term is familiar in modern preaching as "works of the law," however it would be more properly translated in context as "works of Torah," since the law (nomos) Paul is everywhere speaking of in Romans and Galatians is the Mosaic Law (Torah; nomos being the common Septuagint translation of the Hebrew term "Torah"; see the parallel essay, "The Law in Paul" for further discussion). The translation of ergon nomou as "works of Torah" is confirmed by archaeological-lexical evidence because it also appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of the first-century Qumran community in Israel. It appears in a famous document known as MMT, which served as the Constitution or Declaration of Independence for the Qumran community. This document, whose name translates as "Some Pertinent Works of Torah," is focused on certain disputed interpretations of specific Mosaic regulations, and it reveals an enormous preoccupation on the

part of first century Jews with works of Torah. The phrase works of Torah/works of Law is used repeatedly and sheds great light on the meaning of the term in Paul (cf. the three articles in the Nov/Dec 1994 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review and R. Eisenman and M. Wises book The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, chapter 6, Works Reckoned as Righteousness -- Legal Texts). The term "works of Torah" thus predates Paul and is a term he picked up from the Jewish vocabulary of his day (which is why he is having to dispute with people over it in Romans and Galatians, because they were already using the term). And as we said, its first occurrence in Paul is Romans 3:20. Before this point in Romans the term ergon ("work" or "deed") and its cognates were only found in 2:6, 7, and 15. In none of these places does the term indicate what Paul here has in mind. In 2:6 Paul stated that God would judge every man according to his work. Obviously he did not mean works of Torah because the judgment of Gentiles was in view as well as the judgment of Jews (cf. 2:9-10). In 2:7 Paul stated that God would reward those who persevered "in well-doing" (lit., "in good work") by giving them eternal life or immortality (as well as glory and honor). But this is precisely what Paul says works of Torah will not get one because Torah does not give the power to deal with sin. (Thus there is a distinction in Paul's mind between "good work" and "works of Torah.") And in 2:15 Paul stated that when Gentiles do by nature what Torah requires they show that "what the Torah requires" (lit., "the work of Torah") is written on their hearts. This is the core of Torah which is really important--the same thing Paul has in mind in 8:3-4 when he says that God has done what Torah could not do by sending his Son to condemn sin in the flesh, "in order that the just [righteous] requirement of the Torah might be fulfilled in us" (8:4). The "work of Torah" of 2:15 is thus the same as "the righteous requirement of the Torah" of 8:4. It, not all the Torah's commands about diet and festival and ceremony, is what is written on the hearts of Gentiles and which Christ died in order to empower us to accomplish. Thus the introduction of the term "works of Torah" in 3:20 is a new theme in the epistle, separate from the general "works" (actions, whether good or bad) according to which men will be judged, separate from the "good work" which God will reward with eternal life, and separate from the "work of the Law" which is written on the hearts of Gentiles and which Christ died so that we might fulfill. Because of its distinction from these things, we must inquire more closely into what Paul means by the term. Unfortunately, the context here does not give us much of a clue, and it becomes clear in the next chapter, Romans 4. Once the term "works of Torah" has been introduced, evidence accumulates rapidly concerning precisely what Paul has in mind. In 3:28, Paul reiterates his thesis that "a man is justified by faith apart from works of Torah." To support this, he asks rhetorically, "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also" (3:29). "Works of Torah" must therefore be something that are

characteristic of Jews rather than Gentiles. If Paul has in mind anything particular here, it would presumably be the ceremonial components of Torah (circumcision, food laws, festival laws), which are distinctively characteristic of Jews. It would not be the moral components of Torah, since even Gentiles have these written on their hearts (2:15) and they consequently do them "by nature" (2:14).1 It is in chapter 4 that we have the first concrete example of what Paul means by "works of Torah," and the example confirms the thesis just advanced (that if Paul has anything in mind it is the ceremonial rather than the moral components of Torah). The example is circumcision (4:9-12). Paul emphasizes with great force the non-necessity of circumcision for justification. In fact, the whole purpose of his discussion of Abraham as the father of the faithful (chapter 4) is to show the non-necessity of circumcision. This indicates that circumcision is the work of Torah par excellence which Paul has in mind--something confirmed by the fact that Paul had earlier conducted an extended discussion of the irrelevance of circumcision to salvation (2:25-3:1) and by the fact that right after his affirmation in 3:27 that works of Torah are not necessary he drew the implication that God "will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith" (3:30). Our hypothesis that Paul has in mind primarily the ceremonial elements of Torah by "works of Torah" is thus confirmed by the discussion of circumcision in Romans. It is further confirmed by the discussion of circumcision in Galatians. Paul takes pains to point out Titus was not compelled to be circumcised at Jerusalem (Gal 2:3). Paul characterizes the agitators who scared Peter into hypocrisy were "the circumcision party" (Gal 2:12). He emphasizes that "if you receive circumcision, Christ will prophet you nothing" (Gal 5:2). His statement that that "every man who receives circumcision . . . is bound to keep the whole Torah" (Gal 5:3), indicates that circumcision was at the forefront of the debate over Torah and was the sign of embracing Torah. He states that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail" (Gal 5:6). Paul emphasizes the difference between his preaching and the preaching of circumcision by asking, "But if I . . . still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?" (Gal 5:11), and goes on to state that he wishes the circumcizers "would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (Gal 5:12, NIV) He warns his readers that those "that would compel you to be circumcised . . . [do so] only in order that they may not be persecuted" (Gal 6:12) and that "even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the Torah, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh" (Gal 6:13), finally reminding his readers again that "neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" (Gal 6:15). But while circumcision is the work of Torah par excellence which Paul has in mind, there are other works, as indicated by the text of Galatians. When Paul reminds Peter in Galatians 2:16 that they both "know that a man is not justified by works of Torah," it is in a context where Peter and the other Jews had separated themselves from eating with the Gentiles of Antioch (Gal.

2:12-13). This was because Gentiles were unclean and because they ate unclean food (Acts 10:9-16 with 11:3-12). Eating with Gentiles thus indicated a breach of the separation between clean and unclean people (clearly stressed in the Torah) and a partaking of unclean food (also stressed in the Torah). Thus the laws of separation between clean and unclean are also in view when Paul discusses "works of Torah." Paul also laments that the Galatians "observe [Jewish] days, and months, and seasons, and years!" (Gal 4:10). This indicates that in addition to circumcision, separation laws, and food laws, Jewish festival laws are also subsumed under what Paul has in mind when he speaks of "works of Torah." In short, Paul has principally in mind the ceremonial works of Torah when he speaks of "works of Torah."2 But a question arises concerning whether Paul has in mind only the ceremonial works of Torah when he uses the phrase. Does he also have in mind the moral work of Torah? Many contemporary Protestant preachers assume that he does, but this is a judgment that must be established by exegesis and evidence rather than by a simple assertion that it is so. A person who recognizes the united nature of Torah in Paul's thought might argue that, by virtue of its united nature, when Paul speaks of works of Torah he must mean all works of Torah, whether ceremonial or moral. But this is a faulty inference. Arguing that a united whole is unnecessary does not mean that none of its elements are necessary. To assert that it does mean this is to commit what is known in logic as the fallacy of division (i.e., the whole has a certain property--non-necessity--therefore all the parts have this property as well).3 To give an everyday example, a dietitian might tell us that drinking diet Coke is not necessary to good health, but we would not at all be permitted to draw the inference from this that drinking water (the principal ingredient of diet Coke) is not necessary to good health. In the same way, we cannot simply assume from the fact that Torah is not necessary to salvation that none of the things in Torah are necessary to salvation. This is abundantly shown by the fact that one of the things in Torah is belief in God, which on anyone's account, is necessary for salvation.4 Furthermore, Paul's apparent view of a united Torah is mitigated by the fact he regularly moves back and forth between elements of Torah which are and are not important but uses strikingly similar language to express these elements. For example, his use of the phrase "works of Torah" to denote primarily (or exclusively) the ceremonial works which are characteristic of Jews (and which are not written on the hearts of Gentiles) and the similar phrase "work of Torah" which is written on the hearts of Gentiles and which does sometimes characterize their behavior. Much of the impression one gets that Paul has a united Torah in mind is derived from his language (which always speaks of a single Torah, not a set of moral, civil, and ceremonial Torahs), yet his language differentiates between different kinds of "work(s) of Torah." Because of both these considerations (the logical and the linguistic), one cannot argue from Paul's view of a united Torah to the conclusion that he is saying that every element of Torah is unnecessary. Indeed, as we have seen, at least one element of Torah--belief in God--is necessary. That "work of Torah" is required.

So we must turn to exegesis and evidence to establish whether the "(moral) work of the Torah" is included in Paul's phrase "works of Torah." There are a number of very powerful arguments for the idea that they are not: 1. One piece of evidence that we already noted comes from outside the Bible. Recent archaeological and linguistic studies have shown that in first century Judaism the phrase "works of Torah" was a technical term for actions which served as Jewish identity markers (i.e., ceremonial works), indicating their membership in the Jewish covenant, in contrast to those who were outside of it.5 2. Paul clearly has the ceremonial works in mind but he does not clearly have the moral work in mind. This is indicated by the fact that he repeatedly and explicitly stresses the non-necessity of ceremonial works, and especially circumcision, but he never repeatedly or explicitly stresses the non-necessity of the moral work, such as love. 3. Furthermore, Paul not only does not stress the non-necessity of love but that he lays a great deal of stress on the importance of love and obedience. For example, when Paul states that "we wait for the hope of [justification]" (Gal 5:5) he says that "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail [toward that hope], but faith working through love" (or "faith made effective through love," RSV margin; Gal 5:6). 4. Also, Paul indicates that eternal life is a reward for "perseverance in good work" (Rom 2:7) and that we "seek . . . immortality by perseverance in good work" (ibid.). He also states that "he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life" (Gal 6:8) and sowing to the Spirit is defined in context as "shar[ing] all good things with him who teaches" (Gal 6:6, see also 2 Cor 9:1-6), "doing the good" (Gal 6:9), and "doing good to all men" (Gal 6:10). These clearly indicate the necessity of doing good in order to receive the gift of eternal life on the last day. The only way a person could try to avoid the force of this argument would be to say that that (1) is ultimately inconclusive (even though quite strong) because it relies on extra-canonical evidence, that (2), while quite strong, is presumptive rather than conclusive, that (3) has in mind primarily good that is necessary after one is justified, not before, and that (4) is speaking of the final reception of eternal life rather than initial justification. This rejoinder is possible (but very doubtful, in view of the strength of the preceding arguments), but even if successful it would not damage the exposition of Romans we are here developing. It would merely show that love is not necessary for initial justification, leaving intact the fact that they are necessary for the reward of eternal life on the last day (Rom 2:7, Gal 6:6-10) and final, eschatological justification (Gal 5:5-6). The thesis that love is not necessary for initial justification is something to which everyone in Christendom is agreed. The fact Protestants agree to it is so well-known it does not need documentation. But the agreement of Catholics to this thesis is so commonly denied (in Protestant preaching) that it does need documentation.

A Catholic can be perfectly happy saying that "works of Torah" (including works of love) are not necessary to become justified because the Council of Trent, the official Catholic response to the Protestant Reformers, states, "[N]othing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For if it is by grace, it is no more by works. Otherwise, as the apostle says, grace is no more grace."6 Trent thus teaches that nothing prior to justification, including works (of whatever kind) merits justification. In fact, Catholic theology would teach that works of love proper are impossible prior to justification because prior to that time the theological virtue of love has not been infused (poured) into the believer's heart (cf. Rom 5:5--"God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us"). The only kind of love which a person has before justification is the self-oriented love which he shows to those who he hopes will do him good. But this kind of love doesn't count for anything with God (Matt. 5:46). But if works of love proper are not possible before justification, obviously they are not necessary for justification. Finally, the Eastern Orthodox would also agree with the thesis that works of love are not necessary in order to become justified, indicating the agreement of all in Christendom on this point. Therefore, even if "works of Torah" includes "the (moral) work of the Torah," it is of no consequence to our exposition of Romans. It is extremely improbable, given an unbiased evaluation of the four arguments above, that Paul includes the moral work under "works of Torah," but it would not damage our interpretation if he does. One word of application of the preceding considerations to the interpretation of 3:20. As we saw earlier, Paul reasoned that through Torah comes the knowledge of sin and, since Torah does not impart the power to escape sin, it is incapable of justifying one. Paul thus states that "no human will be justified in his sight by works of Torah." Either interpretation of "works of Torah" will make sense of this assertion. If "works of Torah" means all works of the Torah, including works of love, then it is obvious they will not justify one because Torah does not give the ability to do works of love. Similarly, if "works of Torah" means ceremonial works, then it is again obvious that one is not justified by works of Torah because doing ceremonial works does not even begin to deliver from sin, which is the reason the Torah is unable to justify. Thus, whichever way the phrase "works of Torah" is construed, Paul's argument remains firm: Torah only gives knowledge of sin, not escape from it, and so performing works of Torah will not lead to justification. By works of Torah no man will be justified. ENDNOTES: 1. For further development, see commentary on 3:29. 2. The phrase "ceremonial works of Torah" is to be preferred to the more common phrase "works

of the ceremonial law" since Paul does not speak of a ceremonial Torah in contrast to a moral Torah or a civil Torah. The tripartite division of Torah into moral, civil, and ceremonial commands, while an accurate division, is an anachronism that is not found in Paul's thought. The Torah can certainly be divided in that manner, but Paul does not himself make that division. If any division is at the fore of Paul's mind, it is between the binding and the non-binding parts of Torah. But when he discusses these he does not speak of two separate Torahs, but of one Torah which has two aspects--moral and ceremonial--which respectively are and are not binding on Christians. We must thus differentiate between the "(ceremonial) works of Torah" which do not count for anything "in Christ" and the "(moral) work of Torah" which is written on the hearts of Gentiles and which Christians are empowered to fulfill. 3. To give an example of this fallacy I learned in my first class in logic, a great building may have a certain property, such as weighing hundreds of tons, but it does not follow from this that each brick the building has this property as well. 4. Even if it is implicit faith. 5. See Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law, p. 220, Romans, vol. 1, p. 154. This thesis is endorsed by numerous modern authors, including E.P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, p. 147, Alan Segal, Paul the Convert, p. 131, F. J. Matera, Galatians, p. 93, 6. Trent, session six, "Decree on Justification," ch. 8, citing Rom 11:6. Copyright (c) 1996 by James Akin. All Rights Reserved. Return to the main page.

Galatians 5:4,7 - You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law (O.T. law); you have fallen from grace... You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?

CHRIST FOUNDED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH


http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html A- Proof from Scripture I. Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built Mark 3:16; John 1:42 - Simon is renamed "Kepha" in Aramaic by Jesus which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, he changes their status. Gen. 17:5; 32:28; 2 Kings 23:34 - for example, in these verses, we see that God changes the following people's names and, as a result, they become special agents of God: Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel, Eliakim to Jehoiakim. 2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 - in these verses, God is also called "rock." Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example: 1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is the only foundation / Eph. 2:20 - the apostles are the foundation. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek translation of rock is "Petros," and petra means "a small rock" in Greek, Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him, by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha, " not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter. Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Finally, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34 - this is another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in

rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time. Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the word "taute" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Taute" is a demonstrative adjective in Greek, which proves that Peter (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) is the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom). Matt. 16:17 - to further rebut the notion that Jesus was calling Peter a small pebble, Simon in Aramaic means "grain of sand." If Simon's name meant "grain of sand," it would be pointless for Jesus to change his name from "grain of sand" to "pebble." Matt. 16:13 - also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built. Matt. 7:24 - Jesus, like the wise man, builds His house on the rock (Peter), not on grain of sand (Simon) so the house will not fall. Luke 6:48 - the house (the Church) built upon the rock (Peter) cannot be shaken by floods (which represent the heresies, schisms, and scandals that the Church has faced over the last 2,000 years). Floods have occurred, but the Church still remains on its solid rock foundation. Matt. 16:21 - it is also important to note that it was only after Jesus established Peter as leader of the Church that He began to speak of His death and departure. This is because Jesus had now appointed His representative on earth. John 21:15 - Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," referring to the other apostles. Jesus singles Peter out as the leader of the apostolic college. John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter's faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith

may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren. Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 - no one questions Peter's authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates.

II. Peter has the Keys of Authority over the Earthly Kingdom, the Church 2 Sam. 7:16; Psalm 89:3-4; 1 Chron.17:12,14 - God promises to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth. Matt. 1:1 - Matthew clearly establishes this tie of David to Jesus. Jesus is the new King of the new House of David, and the King will assign a chief steward to rule over the house while the King is in heaven. Luke 1:32 - the archangel Gabriel announces to Mary that her Son would be given "the throne of His father David." Matt. 16:19 - Jesus gives Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." While most Protestants argue that the kingdom of heaven Jesus was talking about is the eternal state of glory (as if Peter is up in heaven letting people in), the kingdom of heaven Jesus is speaking of actually refers to the Church on earth. In using the term "keys," Jesus was referencing Isaiah 22 (which is the only place in the Bible where keys are used in the context of a kingdom). Isaiah 22:22 - in the old Davidic kingdom, the representative (the chief steward or Prime Minister) of the King held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. This representative has decision-making authority over the people - when he shuts, no one opens. See also Job 12:14. Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later. Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves. Peter's "keys" fit into the "gates" of Hades which represent pastoral authority over souls. Matt. 23:2-4 - the "binding and loosing" terminology used by Jesus was understood by the Jewish people. For example, the Pharisees "bind" heavy burdens but won't move ("loose") them with their fingers. Peter and the apostles have the new binding and loosing authority over the Church of the New Covenant. Matt. 13:24-52 -Jesus comparing the kingdom of heaven to a field, a mustard seed, leaven, and a net demonstrate that the kingdom Jesus is talking about is the universal Church on earth, not the

eternal state of glory. Therefore, the keys to the "kingdom of heaven" refers to the authority over the earthly Church. Matt. 25:1-2 - Jesus comparing the kingdom of heaven to ten maidens, five of whom were foolish, further shows that the kingdom is the Church on earth. This kingdom cannot refer to the heavenly kingdom because there are no fools in heaven! Mark 4:26-32 - again, the "kingdom of God" is like the seed which grows and develops. The heavenly kingdom is eternal, so the kingdom to which Peter holds the keys of authority is the earthly Church. Luke 9:27 - Jesus says that there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the "kingdom of God." This kingdom refers to the earthly kingdom of Christ, which Jesus established by His death and resurrection on earth. Luke 13:19-20 - again, Jesus says the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed which grew into a tree. This refers to the earthly Church which develops over time, from an acorn to an oak tree (not the heavenly state of glory which is boundless and infinite). Matt 12:28; Mark 1:15; Luke 11:20; 17:21 - these verses provide more examples of the "kingdom of God" as the kingdom on earth which is in our midst. 1 Chron. 28:5 - Solomon sits on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord. This shows that the "kingdom of God" usually means an earthly kingdom. 1 Chron. 29:23 - Solomon sits on the throne of the Lord as king in place of King David. The throne of God refers to the earthly kingdom. Matt. 16:19 - Peter holds keys to this new Davidic kingdom and rules while the real King of David (Jesus) is in heaven. Luke 12:41-42 - when Peter asks Jesus if the parable of the master and the kingdom was meant just for the apostles or for all people, Jesus rhetorically confirms to Peter that Peter is the chief steward over the Master's household of God. "Who then, (Peter) is that faithful and wise steward whom his master will make ruler over His household..?" Ezek. 37:24-25 - David shall be king over them forever and they will have one shepherd. Jesus is our King, and Peter is our earthly shepherd.

III. Peter's Keys and Papal Succession Jer. 33:17 - Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Dan. 2:44 - Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession. Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives. Isa. 22:19 - Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required. This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives. Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called father or papa of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth. Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for over 2,000 years. Acts 1:20 - we see in the early Church that successors are immediately chosen for the apostles' offices. Just as the Church replaced Judas, it also replaced Peter with a successor after Peter's death. John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus' creation of Peter's office as chief shepherd with the keys passed to Linus, Cletus, Clement I, all the way to our current Holy Father. Matt. 23:2 - this shows that the Jews understood the importance of succession to the chair and its attendant authority. Here, Jesus respects Moses' seat ("cathedra") of authority which was preserved by succession. In the Church, Peter's seat is called the "cathedra," and when Peter's successor speaks officially on a matter of faith or morals, it may rise to the level of an "ex cathedra" (from the chair) teaching. Eph. 3:21 - this divine word tells us that Jesus Christ's Church will exist in all generations. Only the Catholic Church can prove by succession such existence. Our Protestant brothers and sisters become uncomfortable with this passage because it requires them to look for a Church that has existed for over 2,000 years. This means that all the other Christian denominations (some of which have been around even less than 5 years!) cannot be the church that Christ built upon the rock of Peter.

IV. The Church is Infallible and Supernatural

Isaiah 35:8, 54:13-17 - this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!) Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the "Way" prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein. Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals. Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. Since the Catholic Church was the only Church which existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail. Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift. Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation. Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus' presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived. Mark 8:33 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter's authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding. Luke 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ's infallible authority. Luke 22:32 - Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus' prayer for Peter's faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error. John 11:51-52 - some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus' death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

1 & 2 Peter - for example, Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals. Further, if Peter could teach infallibly by writing, why could he not also teach infallibly by preaching? And why couldn't his successors so teach as well? Gen. to Deut.; Psalms; Paul - Moses and Paul were murderers and David was an adulterer and murderer, but they also wrote infallibly. God uses us sinful human beings because when they respond to His grace and change their lives, we give God greater glory and His presence is made more manifest in our sinful world. John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself. John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance. John 16:12 - Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn't bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church's infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God's Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good. John 16:13 - Jesus promises that the Spirit will "guide" the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time. Acts 15:27-28 - the apostles know that their teaching is being guided by the Holy Spirit. He protects the Church from deception. Gal. 2:11-14 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to diminish Peter's evident authority over the Church. This is misguided. In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter's teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile's salvation in Acts 10,11. With this rebuke, Paul is really saying "Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facst. You of all people!" The verse really underscores, and not diminishes the importance of Peter's leadership in the Church. Eph. 3:10 - the wisdom of God is known, even to the intellectually superior angels, through the Church (not the Scriptures). This is an incredible verse, for it tells us that God's infinite wisdom comes to us through the Church. For that to happen, the Church must be protected from teaching error on faith and morals (or she wouldn't be endowed with the wisdom of God).

Eph. 3:9 - this, in fact, is a mystery hidden for all ages - that God manifests His wisdom through one infallible Church for all people. Eph. 3:20 - God's glory is manifested in the Church by the power of the Spirit that works within the Church's leaders. As a Father, God exalts His children to roles of leadership within the body of Christ. Eph 5:23-27, Col. 1:18 - Christ is the head of the Church, His Bride, for which He died to make it Holy and without blemish. There is only one Church, just as Christ only has one Bride. Eph. 5:32 - Paul calls the Church a "mystery." This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. "Church" does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us. 1 Thess. 5:21 - Paul commands us to test everything. But we must have something against which to test. This requires one infallible guide that is available to us, and this guide is the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have never changed. 1 Tim. 3:15 - Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible. She also must be the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have not changed for over 2,000 years. God loves us so much that He gave us a Church that infallibly teaches the truth so that we have the fullness of the means of salvation in His only begotten Son. Matt. to Rev. - finally, we must note that not all Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Protestants should ask themselves why they accept the Church's teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

V. The Church is Visible and One Matt. 5:14 - Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation. Matt 12:25; Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17 - Jesus says a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste and will not stand. This describes Protestantism and the many thousands of denominations that continue to multiply each year.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus says, "I will build my 'Church' (not churches)." There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions. Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because "binding and loosing" are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose. John 10:16 - Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church. John 17:11,21,23 - Jesus prays that His followers may be perfectly one as He is one with the Father. Jesus' oneness with the Father is perfect. It can never less. Thus, the oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that have resulted since the Protestant reformation. There is perfect oneness only in the Catholic Church. John 17:9-26 - Jesus' prayer, of course, is perfectly effective, as evidenced by the miraculous unity of the Catholic Church during her more than 2,000 year history. John 17:21 - Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us. There is only one Church that is universally united, and that is the Catholic Church. Only the unity of the Catholic Church truly bears witness to the reality that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father. Rom. 15:5 - Paul says that we as Christians must live in harmony with one another. But this can only happen if there is one Church with one body of faith. This can only happen by the charity of the Holy Spirit who dwells within the Church. Rom. 16:17 - Paul warns us to avoid those who create dissensions and difficulties. This includes those who break away from the Church and create one denomination after another. We need to avoid their teaching, and bring them back into the one fold of Christ. 1 Cor. 1:10 - Paul prays for no dissensions and disagreements among Christians, being of the same mind and the same judgment. How can Protestant pastors say that they are all of the same mind and the same judgment on matters of faith and morals? Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 - again, the Church does not mean "invisible" unity, because Paul called it the body (not the soul) of Christ. Bodies are visible, and souls are invisible. Eph. 4:11-14 - God gives members of the Church various gifts in order to attain to the unity of the faith. This unity is only found in the Catholic Church. Eph. 4:3-5 - we are of one body, one Spirit, one faith and one baptism. This requires doctrinal

unity, not 30,000 different denominations. Eph. 5:25 - the Church is the Bride of Christ. Jesus has only one Bride, not many. Eph. 5:30; Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 6:15 - we, as Christians, are one visible body in Christ, not many bodies, many denominations. Phil. 1:27 - Paul commands that we stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the Gospel. Phil. 2:2 - Paul prays that Christians be of the same mind, of one accord. Yet there are 30,000 different "Protest"ant denominations? Col. 1:18 - Christ is the Head of the one body, the Church. He is not the Head of many bodies or many sects. 1 Tim. 6:4 - Paul warns about those who seek controversy and disputes about words. There must be a universal authority to appeal to who can trace its authority back to Christ. 2 Tim. 2:14 - do not dispute about words which only ruins the hearers. Over 2,000 years of doctrinal unity is a sign of Christ's Church. 2 Tim. 4:3 - this is a warning on following our own desires and not the teachings of God. It is not a cafeteria where we pick and choose. We must humble ourselves and accept all of Christ's teachings which He gives us through His Church. Rev. 7:9 - the heavenly kingdom is filled with those from every nation and from all tribes, peoples and tongues. This is "catholic," which means universal. 1 Peter 3:8 - Peter charges us to have unity of spirit. This is impossible unless there is a central teaching authority given to us by God. Gen. 12:2-3 - since Abram God said all the families of the earth shall be blessed. This family unity is fulfilled only in the Catholic Church. Dan. 7:14 - Daniel prophesies that all peoples, nations and languages shall serve His kingdom. Again, this catholicity is only found in the Catholic Church. 1 Cor. 14:33 - God cannot be the author of the Protestant confusion. Only the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church claims and proves to be Christ's Church.

VI. The Church is Hierarchical Matt. 16:18; 18:18 - Jesus uses the word "ecclesia" only twice in the New Testament Scriptures.

This word demostrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church. Acts 20:17,28 - Paul refers to both the elders or priests ("presbyteroi") and the bishops ("episkopoi") of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church. 1 Cor. 12:28 - God Himself appoints the various positions of authority within the Church. As a loving Father, God gives His children the freedom and authority to act with charity and justice to bring about His work of redemption. Eph. 4:11 - the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation. Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles. 1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ's Church has bishops ("episkopoi") who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles. 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 - Christ's Church also has elders or priests ("presbyteroi") who serve the bishops. 1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ's Church also has deacons ("diakonoi"). Thus, Jesus Christ's Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.

VII. Controversies in the Church Matt. 13:24-30 - scandals have always existed in the Church, just as they have existed outside of the Church. This should not cause us to lose hope in the Church. God's mysterious plan requires the wheat and the weeds to be side by side in the Church until the end of time. Matt. 13:47-50 - God's plan is that the Church (the kingdom of heaven) is a net which catches fish of every kind, good and bad. Matt. 16:18 - no matter how sinful its members conduct themselves, Jesus promised that the gates of death will never prevail against the Church. Matt. 23:2-3 - the Jewish people would have always understood the difference between a person's sinfulness and his teaching authority. We see that the sinfulness of the Pharisees does not minimize their teaching authority. They occupy the "cathedra" of Moses.

Matt. 26:70-72; Mark 14:68-70; Luke 22:57; John 18:25-27 - Peter denied Christ three times, yet he was chosen to be the leader of the Church, and taught and wrote infallibly. Mark 14:45 - Judas was unfaithful by betraying Jesus. But his apostolic office was preserved and this did not weaken the Church. Mark 14:50 - all of Jesus' apostles were unfaithful by abandoning Him in the garden of Gethsemane, yet they are the foundation of the Church. John 20:24-25 - Thomas the apostle was unfaithful by refusing to believe in Jesus' resurrection, yet he taught infallibly in India. Rom. 3:3-4 - unfaithful members do not nullify the faithfulness of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Eph. 5:25-27 - just as Jesus Christ has both a human and a divine nature, the Church, His Bride, is also both human and divine. It is the holy and spotless bride of Christ, with sinful human members. 1 Tim. 5:19 - Paul acknowledges Church elders might be unfaithful. The Church, not schism, deals with these matters. 2 Tim. 2:13 - if we remain faithless, God remains faithful for He cannot deny Himself. 2 Tim. 2:20 - a great house has not only gold and silver, but also wood and earthenware, some for noble use, some for ignoble use. Jer. 24:1-10 - God's plan includes both good and bad figs. The good figs will be rewarded, and the bad figs will be discarded. 1 Kings 6,7,8 - the Lord commands us to build elaborate places of worship. Some non-Catholics think that this is controversial and the money should be given to the poor, even though no organization does more for the poor of the world that the Catholic Church. Matt 26:8-9; Mark 14:4-5; John 12:5 - but negative comments concerning the beauty of the Church are like the disciples complaining about the woman anointing Jesus' head with costly oil. Matt. 26:10-11 - Jesus says we have both a duty to honor God and give to the poor - a balanced life of reverence and charity.

B. PROOF FROM TRADITION/CHURCH FATHERS

I. Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built

Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...' Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200). And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail... Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232). By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established. Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235). '...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251). ...folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid... Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256). ...Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others... Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325). And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail' Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325). ...the chief of the disciples...the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church. Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337). Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church... Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350). [B]lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom... Hilary de Poiters, On the Trinity, 6:20(A.D. 359). [F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest. Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370). [T]he Lord spoke to Peter a little earlier; he spoke to one, that from one he might found unity,

soon delivering the same to all. Pacian, To Sympronianus, Epistle 3:2 (AD 372). "Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me...I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures." Ephraim, Homily 4:1, (A.D. 373). [T]he first of the apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built. Epiphanius, In Ancorato, 9:6 (A.D. 374). Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church. Basil, In Isaias, 2:66 (A.D. 375). As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 375). Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the church. Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 32:18 (A.D. 380). [W]e have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it..."...The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it. Pope Damasus, Decree of Damasus, 3 (A.D. 382). It was right indeed that he (Paul) should be anxious to see Peter; for he was the first among the apostles, and was entrusted by the Savior with the care of the churches. Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Galatians, PL 17:344 (A.D. 384). "Peter bore the person of the church. Augustine, Sermon 149:7 (inter A.D. 391-430). Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. Augustine, Psalmus contro Partem Donati (A.D. 393). But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one (Peter) among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, 1 (A.D. 393).

The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles...he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the savior built his Church. Gregory of Nyssa, Panegyric on St. Stephen, 3 (ante A.D. 394). Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church, Wherefore where Peter is the Church is... Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 40:30 (AD 395). At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church. Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 43:40 (AD 397). In order that he may show his power, God has endowed none of his disciples with gifts like Peter. But, having raised him with heavenly gifts, he has set him above all. And, as first disciple and greater among the brethren, he has shown, by the test of deeds, the power of the Spirit. The first to be called, he followed at once...The Saviour confided to this man, as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times 'Lovest thou me?' And he receive the world in charge... Asterius, Homily 8 (A.D. 400). "(Peter) The first of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of disciples." John Chrysostom, Ad eos qui scandalizati 17(ante A.D. 407). Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received revelation not from man but from the Father...this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey. John Chrysostom, De Eleemosyna, 3:4 (ante A.D. 407). This Peter on whom Christ freely bestowed a sharing in his name. For just as Christ is the rock, as the Apostle Paul taught, so through Christ Peter is made rock, when the Lord says to him: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church... Maximus of Turin, Homily 63 (A.D. 408). ...the most firm rock, who (Peter) from the principal Rock received a share of his virtue and his name. Prosper of Aquitaine, The Call of All Nations, 2:28(A.D. 426). He promises to found the church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this he sets Peter as shepherd. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew (A.D. 428). [B]ut that great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the authority in faith and priesthood. Tell us therefore, tell us we beg of you, Peter, prince of the Apostles, tell us how the churches must believe in God. John Cassian, Contra Nestorium, 3:12 (A.D. 430). There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the

human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever, lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place... Philip, Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431). [B]lessed Peter preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he under took...And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See...to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this See, but also primate of all bishops. When therefore...believe that he is speaking whose representative we are:.. Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 3:3-4 (A.D. 442). We exhort you, honourable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome. Peter Chrysologus, Epistle 25 of Leo from Peter (A.D. 449). If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your apostolic see in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges. Theodoret of Cyrus, To Pope Leo, Epistle 113 (A.D. 449). [T]he Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. Pope Leo the Great, To Bishops of Vienne, Epistle 10 (A.D. 450). Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith... Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451). Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. 'Peter, the apostle, who is the rock and support of the Catholic Church.' Paschasinus, Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451). Peter is again called 'the coryphaeus of the Apostles. Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25 (ante A.D. 468).

The holy Roman Church is senior to the other churches not by virtue of any synodal decrees, but obtained the primacy from Our Lord and Savior in the words of the Gospel, 'Thou art Peter...' Pope Gelasius, Decree of Gelasium (A.D. 492). [T]he statement of Our Lord Jesus Christ who said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,'...These (words) which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain.' Pope Hormisdas, Libellus professionis fidei, (A.D. 519). To Peter, that is, to his church, he gave the power of retaining and forgiving sins on earth. Fulgentius, De Remissione Peccatorum, 2:20 (A.D. 523). Who could be ignorant of the fact that the holy church is consolidated in the solidity of the prince of the Apostles, whose firmness of character extended to his name so that he should be called Peter after the 'rock', when the voice of the Truth says, 'I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven'. To him again is said "When after a little while thou hast come back to me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren. Pope Gregory the Great, Epistle 40 (A.D. 604). The decrees of the Roman Pontiff, standing upon the supremacy of the Apostolic See, are unquestionable. Isidore of Seville, (ante A.D. 636). For the extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy Councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the Keys of right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High. Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theologica et polemica (A.D. 650). Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord...the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced... Pope Agatho, To Ecumenical Council VI at Constantinople, (A.D. 680). "A copy of the letter sent by the holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council to Agatho, the most blessed and most holy pope of Old RomeTherefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out

the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up.. Constantinople III, Council to Pope Agatho, (A.D. 680). For, although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for Peter alone, and wished that the others be confirmed my him; and to Peter also was committed the care of 'feeding the sheep'(John 21:15);and to him also did the Lord hand over the 'keys of the kingdom of heaven'(Matthew 16:19),and upon him did He promise to 'build His Church' (Matthew 16:18);and He testified that 'the gates of Hell would not prevail against it' (Matthew 16:19). Pope Pelagius II, Quod Ad Dilectionem (c. A.D. 685). 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven'? When Wilfrid spoken thus, the king said, 'It is true, Colman, that these words were spoken to Peter by our Lord?' He answered, 'It is true O king!' Then says he, 'Can you show any such power given to your Columba?' Colman answered, 'None.' Then added the king, "Do you both agree that these words were principally directed to Peter, and that the keys of heaven were given to him by our Lord?' They both answered, 'We do.' Venerable Bede, (A.D. 700), Ecclesiastical History, 3:5 (A.D. 700).

II. The Church is called Catholic "See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110). "[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155). to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all. The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177). "[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied

being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180). Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.2 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3,2 (A.D. 180). For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200). Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God's priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another. Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254). But for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance...these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325). "Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church..." Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325). Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, 'That thou mayest know haw

thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350). "[T]he Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,' on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;' that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350). "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life. Amen." Apostles Creed (A.D. 360). "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the life-giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is together worshiped and together glorified, Who spoke through the prophets; in one holy Catholic, and apostolic Church." Constantinopolitan Creed (A.D. 381). "Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God." Council of Constantinople I, Canon 7 (A.D. 381). We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard. Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12 (A.D. 390). Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same. Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21 (A.D. 393).

"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life--not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nationsso does her authoritythe succession of priests[a]nd so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic ChurchNow if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic ChurchFor my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Churchfor it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you." Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397). "You think that you make a very acute remark when you affirm the name Catholic to mean universal, not in respect to the communion as embracing the whole world, but in respect to the observance of all Divine precepts and of all the sacraments, as if we (even accepting the position that the Church is called Catholic because it honestly holds the whole truth, of which fragments here and there are found in some heresies) rested upon the testimony of this word's signification, and not upon the promises of God, and so many indisputable testimonies of the truth itself, our demonstration of the existence of the Church of God in all nations." Augustine, To Vincent the Rogatist, 93:7,23 (A.D. 403). "Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors." Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431). "I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they arise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic ChurchTherefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation" Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 2:4,5 (A.D. 434). "Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us,

and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

III. The Church is Indefectible "But [it has, on the other hand, been shown], that the preaching of the Church is everywhere consistent, and continues in an even course, and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciplesFor in the Church," it is said, "God hath set apostles, prophets, teachers,' and all the other means through which the Spirit works; of which all those are not partakers who do not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their perverse opinions and infamous behaviour. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:24 (A.D. 180). "But we who hope for the Son of God are persecuted and trodden down by those unbelievers. For the wings of the vessels are the churches; and the sea is the world, in which the Church is set, like a ship tossed in the deep, but not destroyed; for she has with her the skilled Pilot, Christ. And she bears in her midst also the trophy (which is erected) over death; for she carries with her the cross of the LordAs the wind the Spirit from heaven is present, by whom those who believe are sealed: she has also anchors of iron accompanying her, viz., the holy commandments of Christ Himself, which are strong as iron. She has also mariners on the right and on the left, assessors like the holy angels, by whom the Church is always governed and defended. Hippolytus, Christ and Anti-Christ, 59 (A.D. 200). "But I shall pray the Spirit of Christ to wing me to my Jerusalem. For the Stoics say that heaven is properly a city, but places here on earth are not cities; for they are called so, but are not. For a city is an important thing, and the people a decorous body, and a multitude of men regulated by law as the church by the word--a city on earth impregnable--free from tyranny; a product of the divine will on earth as in heaven." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 4:26 (A.D. 202). "And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail..." Origen, On John, 5 (A.D. 232). "[F]or the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock, is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it." Origen, On Matthew, 12:11 (A.D. 244). From which things it is evident that all the prophets declared concerning Christ, that it should come to pass at some time, that being born with a body of the race of David, He should build an

eternal temple in honour of God, which is called the Church, and assemble all nations to the true worship of God. This is the faithful house, this is the everlasting temple; and if any one hath not sacrificed in this, he will not have the reward of immortality. And since Christ was the builder of this great and eternal temple, He must also have an everlasting priesthood in it; and there can be no approach to the shrine of the temple, and to the sight of God, except through Him who built the temple. David in the sixth Psalm teaches the same, saying: 'Before the morning-star I begat Thee. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent; Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec. Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 4:14 (A.D. 310). "And besides, also, one only Catholic and Apostolic Church, which can never be destroyed, though all the world should seek to make war with it; but it is victorious over every most impious revolt of the heretics who rise up against it. For her Goodman hath confirmed our minds by saying, 'Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.' " Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle on the Arian Heresy, 12 (A.D. 321). The Church, ordained by the Lord and established by His Apostles, is one for all; but the frantic folly of discordant sects has severed them from her. And it is obvious that these dissensions concerning the faith result from a distorted mind, which twists the words of Scripture into conformity with its opinion, instead of adjusting that opinion to the words of Scripture. And thus, amid the clash of mutually destructive errors, the Church stands revealed not only by her own teaching, but by that of her rivals. They are ranged, all of them, against her; and the very fact that she stands single and alone is her sufficient answer to their godless delusions. The hosts of heresy assemble themselves against her; each of them can defeat all the others, but not one can win a victory for itself. The only victory is the triumph which the Church celebrates over them all. Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 7:4 (A.D. 359). "[W]e are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this." Athanasius, To Epicletus, Epistle 59:3 (A.D. 371). "He seems to have designated the tabernacle of the Old Testament a likeness, or a type, and a temporary tabernacle, thereby to intimate that it was to last but for a time, and that, when at last set aside, for it would be substituted the church of Christ, and that this, as being perfect and complete pattern of the heavenly tabernacle, would abide for ever." Ephraem, On Exodus,1:2 (ante A.D.373). "Such as these have no power against the ark; for holy Noah received a commission, according to the word of the Lord, to secure it; as the Lord said unto him, 'Thou shalt pitch it within and without'; that he might thereby point out the semblance of the holy church of God, which has that efficacy of pitch which repells pernicious and destructive and serpent-like doctrines. For where is the smell of pitch, there the snake is unable to remain." Epiphanius, Panarion, 51 (A.D. 377). For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. Jerome, To Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], Epistle 15:2 (A.D. 377).

It follows after commendation of the Trinity, 'The Holy Church.' God is pointed out, and His temple. 'For the temple of God is holy,' says the Apostle, 'which (temple) are ye.' This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abideth in its root, in its Vine, in its charity. 'The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' Augustine, Sermon to the Catechumens on the Creed, 6:14 (A.D. 377). Go thy way, therefore, to my brethren--that is, to those everlasting doors, which, as soon as they see Jesus, are lifted up. Peter is an 'everlasting door,' against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail. John and James, the sons of thunder, to wit, are 'everlasting doom.' Everlasting are the doors of the Church, where the prophet, desirous to proclaim the praises of Christ, says: 'That I may tell all thy praises in the gates of the daughter of Sion.' Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, 4:26 (A.D. 380). "An heretical congregation is an adulteress woman: for the Catholic hath never from the beginning left the couch and the chamber of her spouse, nor gone after other and strange lovers. Ye have painted a divorced form in new colours; ye have withdrawn your couch from the old wedlock' ye have left the body of a mother, the wife of one husband, decking yourselves out with new arts of pleasing, new allurements of corruption." Pacian, Epistle 3(ante A.D. 392). "Do not hold aloof from the Church; for nothing is stronger than the Church. The Church is thy hope, thy salvation, thy refuge. It is higher than the heaven, it is wider than the earth. It never waxes old, but is always in full vigour. Wherefore as significant of its solidity and stability Holy Scripture calls it a mountain: or of its purity a virgin, or of its magnificence a queen; or of its relationship to God a daughter; and to express its productiveness it calls her barren who has borne seven Chrysostom, Eutropius, 2:6 (A.D. 399). 'I have raised him up a king with justice, and all his ways are right.' The ways of Christ are right, and he has built the holy city, that is, the church, wherein also he dwelleth. For he abideth in the saints, and we have become temples of the living God, having Christ within us through the participation of the Holy Spirit. He, therefore, founded a church, himself being the foundation, in which we also, as rich and precious stones, are built into a holy temple, as a dwelling-place for God in the spirit; the church, having Christ for a foundation, and an immoveable support, is perfectly immoveable. Cyril of Alexandria, On Isaiah, 4 (A.D. 429). 'But thou hast upheld me by reason of mine innocence, and hast established me in thy sight for ever.' This signifies the church in the apostles and prophets; for not philosophers and rhetoricians, but unlearned men and fishermen, upheld of God, founded a church which he has established in his sight forever. Arnobius the Younger, On Psalms, 40 (A.D. 439). He also denotes, by these men, those who have risen up at divers times against the church, and were not able to overcome it, in accordance with that prohibition of our God and Saviour; 'For the gates of hell,' he says, 'shall not prevail against it.' Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretation of Psalms, 5 (A.D. 449).

But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in viewThis, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,--this, and nothing else,--she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new nameWhat but the Catholic and universal doctrine, which has continued one and the same through the several successions of ages by the uncorrupt tradition of the truth and so will continue for ever--'Receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed, for he that biddeth him Godspeed communicates with him in his evil deeds.' Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 59-60 (A.D. 450). "Since, therefore, the universal Church has become a rock (petra) through the building up of that original Rock , and the first of the Apostles, the most blessed Peter, heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock (petra) I will build My Church ,' who is there who dare assail such impregnable strength, unless he be either antichrist or the devil, who, abiding unconverted in his wickedness, is anxious to sow lies by the vessels of wrath which are suited to his treachery, whilst under the false name of diligence he pretends to be in search of the Truth." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], To Leo Augustus, Epistle 156:2 (ante A.D. 461).

IV. The Churchs Ecumenical Councils are Infallible "Are they not then committing a crime, in their very thought to gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council? Are they not in transgression, when they dare to confront that good definition against Arianism, acknowledged, as it is, by those who had in the first instance taught them irreligion? " Athanasius, Defence of the Nicene Definition, 2 (A.D. 351). "This gave occasion for an Ecumenical Council, that the feast might be everywhere celebrated on one day, and that the heresy which was springing up might be anathematized. It took place then; and the Syrians submitted, and the Fathers pronounced the Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist, and drew up a suitable formula against it. And yet in this, many as they are, they ventured on nothing like the proceedings of these three or four men. Without pre-fixing Consulate, month, and day, they wrote concerning Easter, 'It seemed good as follows,' for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, 'It seemed good,' but, 'Thus believes the Catholic Church;' and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles." Athanasius, Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia, 5( A.D. 362). "But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicaea, abides for ever." Athanasius, To the Bishops of Africa, 2 (A.D. 372).

"[T]hat you should confess the faith put forth by our Fathers once assembled at Nicaea, that you should not omit any one of its propositions, but bear in mind that the three hundred and eighteen who met together without strife did not speak without the operation of the Holy Ghost, and not to add to that creed the statement that the Holy Ghost is a creature, nor hold communion with those who so say, to the end that the Church of God may be pure and without any evil admixture of any tare." Basil, To Cyriacus, Epistle 114 (A.D. 372). "Synods create security on the point that falls under notice from time to time." Epiphanius, Panarion, 74 (A.D. 377). "And therefore, first in the holy Synod of Nicaea, the gathering of the three hundred and eighteen chosen men, united by the Holy Ghost, as far as in him lay, he [St. Athanasius] stayed the disease. Though not yet ranked among the Bishops, he held the first rank among the members of the Council, for preference was given to virtue just as much as to office." Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21:14 (A.D. 379). The Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm. And every heresy shall be anathematized, particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomoeans, the Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians. Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I, Canon 1 (A.D. 381). "This was decreed at the Synod of Ariminum, and rightly do I detest that council, following the rule of the Nicene Council, from which neither death nor the sword can detach me, which faith the father of your Clemency also." Ambrose, To the Emperor Valentinian, Epistle 21:14 (A.D. 386). "Some of the brethren whose heart is as our heart told us of the slanders that were being propagated to our detriment by those who hate peace, and privily backbite their neighbour; and have no fear of the great and terrible judgment-seat of Him Who has declared that account will be required even of idle words in that trial of our life which we must all look for: they say that the charges which are being circulated against us are such as these; that we entertain opinions opposed to those who at Nicea set forth the right and sound faith." Gregory of Nyssa, To Sebasteia, Epistle 2 (ante A.D. 394). "As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, e.g. the annual commemoration, by special solemnities, of the Lord's passion, resurrection, and ascension, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit from heaven, and whatever else is in like manner observed by the whole Church wherever it has been established." Augustine, To Januarius, Epistle 54:1 (A.D. 400). "[H]e, I say, abundantly shows that he was most willing to correct his own opinion, if any one

should prove to him that it is as certain that the baptism of Christ can be given by those who have strayed from the fold, as that it could not he lost when they strayed; on which subject we have already said much. Nor should we ourselves venture to assert anything of the kind, were we not supported by the unanimous authority of the whole Church, to which he himself would unquestionably have yielded, if at that time the truth of this question had been placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council. For if he quotes Peter as an example for his allowing himself quietly and peacefully to be corrected by one junior colleague, how much more readily would he himself, with the Council of his province, have yielded to the authority of the whole world, when the truth had been thus brought to light?" Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, 2:5 (A.D. 401). "What the custom of the Church has always held, what this argument has failed to prove false, and what a plenary Council has confirmed, this we follow!" Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatist, 4:10 (A.D. 401). "And in no wise do we suffer to be shaken by any one, the faith defined, or the symbol of faith settled, by our fathers, who assembled, in their day, at Nicea. Neither do we allow ourselves, or any other to alter a word there set down, or even to omit a single syllable, mindful of that saying: 'Remove not the ancient land-marks which thy fathers have set.' " Cyril of Alexandria, To John of Antioch, 5 (A.D. 433). "[C]leave to the holy synod which assembled at Nicea, nothing added (thereto), nothing diminishing; for that synod being divinely inspired, taught the true doctrine." Isidore of Pelusium, Epistle 99:4 (ante A.D. 435). "So have I learnt not only from the apostles and prophets but also from the interpreters of their writings, Ignatius, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, John, and the rest of the lights of the world; and before these from the holy Fathers in council at Nicea, whose confession of the faith I preserve in its integrity, like an ancestral inheritance, styling corrupt and enemies of the truth all who dare to transgress its decrees." Theodoret of Cyrus, To Florentius, Epistle 89 (A.D. 449). "The great and holy and universal Synod, which by the grace of God and the sanction of our most pious and Christ-loving Emperors has been gathered together in the metropolis of ChalcedonFor if 'where two or three are gathered together in His name,' He has said that 'there He is in the midst of them,' must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their country and their ease? Of whom you were, chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill in the person of those who represented you; whilst our religious Emperors presided to the furtherance of due order, inviting us to restore the doctrinal fabric of the Church, even as Zerubbabel invited Joshua to rebuild Jerusalem." Council of Chalcedon to Pope Leo the Great, Epistle 98:1 (A.D. 451). "Anatolius' attempts to subvert the decisions of Nicea are futile. But at the present time let it be enough to make a general proclamation on all points, that if in any synod any one makes any attempt upon or seems to take occasion of wresting an advantage against the provisions of the Nicene canons, he can inflict no discredit upon their inviolable decrees: and it will be easier for

the compacts of any conspiracy to be broken through than for the regulations of the aforesaid canons to be in any particular invalidated." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], To Maximus, Epistle 119:3 (A.D. 453). "[T]he Sacred Synod of Nicea...Ephesus...[and] Chalcedon...to be received after those of the Old or New Testament, which we regularly accept." Pope Gelasius [regn. A.D. 492-496], Epistle 42 (A.D. 492). "Besides those which are contained in the Decretal of Gelasius, here, after the Synod of Ephesus 'Constantinople(I)' was also inserted: then was added: But even if any councils thus far have been instituted by the holy Fathers, we have decreed that after the authority of those four they must be both kept and received." Pope Hormisdas [regn. A.D. 514-523], Epistle 125 (A.D. 520). "We confessed that we hold, preserve, and declare to the holy churches that confession of faith which the 318 holy Fathers more at length set forth, who were gathered together at Nicea, who handed down the holy anathema or creed. Moreover, the 150 gathered together at Constantinople set forth our faith, who followed that same confession of faith and explained it. And the consent of fire 200 holy fathers gathered for the same faith in the first Council of Ephesus. And what things were defined by the 630 gathered at Chalcedon for the one and the same faith, which they both followed and taught. And all those wile from time to time have been condemned or anathematized by the Catholic Church, and by the aforesaid four Councils, we confessed that we hold them condemned and anathematized." Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Sentence of the Synod (A.D. 553). "I confess that I receive and revere, as the four books of the Gospel so also the four Councils: to wit, the Nicene, in which the perverse doctrine of Arius is overthrown; the Constantinopolitan also, in which the error of Eunomius and Macedonius is refuted; further, the first Ephesine, in which the impiety of Nestorius is condemned; and the Chalcedonian, in which the pravity of Eutyches and Dioscorus is reprobated. These with full devotion I embrace, and adhere to with most entire approval; since on them, as on a four-square stone, rises the structure of the holy faithThe fifth council also I equally venerate, in which the epistle which is called that of Ibas, full of error, is reprobated; Theodorus, who divides the Mediator between God and men into two subsistencesand the writings of Theodoritus, in which the faith of the blessed Cyril is impugned, are refuted as having been published with the daring of madness. But all persons whom the aforesaid venerable Councils repudiate I repudiate; those whom they venerate I embrace; since, they having been constituted by universal consent, he overthrows not them but himself, whosoever presumes either to loose those whom they bind, or to bind those whom they loose. Whosoever, therefore, thinks otherwise, let him be anathema. But whosoever holds the faith of the aforesaid synods, peace be to him from God the Father, through Jesus Christ His Son, Who lives and reigns consubstantially God with Him in the Unity of the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen." Pope Gregory the Great [regn. A.D. 590-604], To John of Constantinople, Epistle 24 (A.D. 591). "And in the fourth holy and great Ecumenical Council, I mean the one at Chalcedon, we are told that it was in this form that the Hymn was sung; for the minutes of this holy assembly so record

it. It is, therefore, a matter for laughter and ridicule that this 'Thrice Holy' Hymn, taught us by the angels, and confirmed by the averting of calamity, ratified and established by so great an assembly of the holy Fathers, and sung first by the Seraphim as a declaration of the three subsistences of the Godhead, should be mangled and forsooth emended to suit the view of the stupid Fuller as though he were higher than the Seraphim. But oh! the arrogance! not to say folly! But we say it thus, though demons should rend us in pieces, 'Do Thou, Holy God, Holy and Mighty One, Holy and Immortal One, have mercy upon us.'" John of Damascene, Orthodox Faith, 10 (A.D. 743).

V. The Church is Hierarchical "Accordingly, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers." The Didache (c. A.D. 90). "Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96). "See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8 (c. A.D. 110). "Hegesippus and the Events which he mentiones. Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.'" Hegesippus, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, 4:22 (c. A.D. 180). "Since, according to my opinion, the grades here in the Church, of bishops, presbyters, deacons,

are imitations of the angelic glory, and of that economy which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who, following the footsteps of the apostles, have lived in perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6:13 (A.D. 202). "Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my ChurchThence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith." Cyprian, To the Lasped, Epistle 26/33 (A.D. 250). "And before you had received the grace of the episcopate, no one knew you; but after you became one, the laity expected you to bring them food, namely instruction from the Scriptures...For if all were of the same mind as your present advisers, how would you have become a Christian, since there would be no bishops? Or if our successors are to inherit the state of mind, how will the Churches be able to hold together?" Athanasius, To Dracontius, Epistle 49:2,4 (c. A.D. 355). "The Blessed Apostle Paul in laying down the form for appointing a bishop and creating by his instructions an entirely new type of member of the Church, has taught us in the following words the sum total of all the virtues perfected in him:--Holding fast the word according to the doctrine of faith that he may be able to exhort to sound doctrine and to convict gainsavers. For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers. For in this way he points out that the essentials of orderliness and morals are only profitable for good service in the priesthood if at the same time the qualities needful for knowing how to teach and preserve the faith are not lacking, for a man is not straightway made a good and useful priest by a merely innocent life or by a mere knowledge of preaching." Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity (A.D. 359). "The immediate object of my entreaty is as follows. By the old census, the clergy of God, presbyters and deacons, were left exempt" Basil, To Modestus, Epistle 104 (A.D. 372). "You must know that Faustus came with letters for me, from the pope, requesting that he might be ordained bishop." Basil, To Theodotus, Epistle 121 (A.D. 373). "There is not, however, such narrowness in the moral excellence of the Catholic Church as that I should limit my praise of it to the life of those here mentioned. For how many bishops have I known most excellent and holy men, how many, presbyters, how many deacons, and ministers of all kinds of the divine sacraments, whose virtue seems to me more admirable and more worthy of commendation on account of the greater difficulty of preserving it amidst the manifold varieties of men, and in this life of turmoil!" Augustine, On the Morals of the Catholic Church, 69 (A.D. 388).

"Who can test himself by the rules and standards which Paul laid down for bishops and presbyters, that they are to be temperate, sober-minded, not given to wine, no strikers, apt to teach, blameless in all things, and beyond the reach of the wicked, without finding considerable deflection from the straight line of the rules?" Gregory of Nazianzen, In Defense of his Flight, 69 (ante A.D. 389). "You saw there the deacon, you saw the priest, you saw the chief priest [the bishop]." Ambrose, Concerning the Mysteries, 2 (A.D.391). "To this end it is well, I think, to look out for high qualifications in your election, that he who is appointed to the Presidency may be suitable for the post. Now the Apostolic injunctions do not direct us to look to high birth, wealth, and distinction in the eyes of the world among the virtues of a Bishop." Gregory of Nyssa, To the Church at Nicodemia, Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394). I have often noticed this, Sulpitius, that Martin was accustomed to say to you, that such an abundance of power was by no means granted him while he was a bishop, as he remembered to have possessed before he obtained that office. Now, if this be true, or rather since it is true, we may imagine how great those things were which, while still a monk, he accomplished, and which, without any witness, he effected apart by himself; since we have seen that, while a bishop, he performed so great wonders before the eyes of all. Sulpitius Severus, Dialogues, 2,4 (c. A.D. 400). "To the fellow-Bishops and Deacons.' What is this? were there several Bishops of one city? Certainly not; but he called the Presbyters so. For then they still interchanged the titles, and the Bishop was called a Deacon. For this cause in writing to Timothy, he said, Fulfil thy ministry,' when he was a Bishop. For that he was a Bishop appears by his saying to him, Lay hands hastily on no man' (1 Tim. v. 22). And again, Which was given thee with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery' (1 Tim. iv. 14). Yet Presbyters would not have laid hands on a Bishop." Chrysostom, Homily on Philippians, 1:1 (c. A.D. 404). "Theotocos,' but not in the sense in which it is imagined by a certain impious heresy which maintains, that she is to be called the Mother of God for no other reason than because she gave birth to that man who afterwards became God, just as we speak of a woman as the mother of a priest, or the mother of a bishop, meaning that she was such, not by giving birth to one already a priest or a bishop, but by giving birth to one who afterwards became a priest or a bishop. Not thus, I say, was the holy Mary Theotocos,' the mother of God, but rather, as was said before, because in her sacred womb was wrought that most sacred mystery whereby, on account of the singular and unique unity of Person, as the Word in flesh is flesh, so Man in God is God." Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 15 ( A.D. 434). "For in the early days of the faith when only a few, and those the best of men, were known by the name of monks, who, as they received that mode of life from the Evangelist Mark of blessed memory, the first to preside over the Church of Alexandria as Bishop...But sometimes it creates a wish to take holy orders, and a desire for the priesthood or diaconate. And it represents that if a

man has even against his will received this office, he will fulfill it with such sanctity and strictness that he will be able to set an example of saintliness even to other priests; and that he will win over many people, not only by his manner of life, but also by his teaching and preaching. John Cassian, Institutes, 2:5,11:14 (ante A.D. 435). "For although they who are not within the ranks of the clergy are free to take pleasure in the companionship of wedlock and the procreation of children, yet for the exhibiting of the purity of complete continence, even sub-deacons are not allowed carnal marriage: that both those that have, may be as though they had not,' and those who have not, may remain single. But if in this order, which is the fourth from the Head, this is worthy to be observed, how much more is it to be kept in the first, or second, or third, lest any one be reckoned fit for either the deacon's duties or the presbyter's honourable position, or the bishop's pre-eminence, who is discovered not yet to have bridled his uxorious desires." Pope Leo the Great [regn A.D. 440-461], To Anastasius, Epistle 14,5 (A.D. 446). "Through my most beloved son Laurentius, the presbyter, and Peter the monk, I received thy Fraternity's letter, in which thou hast been at pains to question me on many pointsAugustine's first question. I ask, most blessed father, concerning bishops, how they should live with their clergy: And concerning the offerings of the faithful which are received at the altars, both into what portions they should be divided, and how the bishop ought to deal with them in the Church. Answer of St. Gregory, Pope of the City of Rome. Holy Scripture, which no doubt thou knowest well, bears witness, and especially the epistles of the blessed Paul to Timothy, in which he studied to instruct him how he ought to behave himself in the house of God. Now it is the custom of the Apostolic See to deliver an injunction to bishops when ordained, that of all emoluments that come in four divisions should be made: to wit, one for the bishop and his household on account of hospitality and entertainment; another for the clergy; a third for the poor; and a fourth for the reparation of Churches. Pope Gregory the Great [regn A.D. 590-604], To Augustine, Epistle 64 (A.D. 595).

VI. The Church is Visible and One Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbytersIt behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures. For the Church has been planted as a garden (paradisus) in this world; therefore says the Spirit of God, 'Thou mayest freely eat from every tree of the garden,' that is, Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord; but ye shall not eat with an uplifted mind, nor touch any heretical discord." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:20 (A.D. 180). "I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the peculiarities of the Christian society, that, as I have refuted the evil charged against it, I may point out its positive good. We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with

united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This violence God delights inWe assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more steadfast; and no less by inculcations of God's precepts we confirm good habits." Tertullian, Apology, 39:1 (A.D. 197). "To sum up all in one word--what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, yet is not of the body; and Christians dwell in the world, yet are not of the world. The invisible soul is guarded by the visible body, and Christians are known indeed to be in the world, but their godliness remains invisible." Letter to Diognetus, 6:1 (A.D. 200). "You may learn, if you will, the crowning wisdom of the all-holy Shepherd and Instructor, of the omnipotent and paternal Word, when He figuratively represents Himself as the Shepherd of the sheepSuch are the promises of the good Shepherd. Feed us, the children, as sheep. Yea, Master, fill us with righteousness, Thine own pasture; yea, O Instructor, feed us on Thy holy mountain the Church, which towers aloft, which is above the clouds, which touches heaven." Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, I:9 (A.D. 202). "We are not to give heed to those who say, Behold here is Christ, but show him not in the Church, which is filled with brightness from the East even unto the West; which is filled with true light; is the 'pillar and ground of truth'; in which, as a whole, is the whole advent of the Son of Man, who saith to all men throughout the universe, 'Behold, I am with you all the days of life even unto the consumption of the world.'" Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Tract 30 (A.D. 244). "The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, 'He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.' Cyprian, On Unity, 6 (A.D. 251). "Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,--when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated." Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 5 (A.D.

256). "'A city built upon a mountain cannot be hid' The light, or lamp of Christ, is not now to be hidden under a bushel, nor to be concealed by any covering of the synagogue, but, hung on the wood of the Passion, it will give an everlasting light to those that dwell in the church. He also admonishes the apostles to shine with like splendour, that by the admiration of their deeds, praise may be given to God." Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, 5:13 (A.D. 355). "'And his throne as the sun before me.' Understand, by the 'throne' of Christ, the Church; for in it he rests. The Church of Christ, then, he says, shall be refulgent and enlighten all under heaven, and be abiding as the sun and the moon. For this passage says so: 'His throne as the sun before me, and as the moon perfect forever, and a faithful witness in heaven.'" Athanasius, Exposition in the Psalms, 88 (ante A.D. 373). "'And in the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of the mountains' The house of the Lord, 'prepared on the top of the mountains,' is the church, according to the declaration of the apostle, 'Know,' he says, 'how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God' Whose foundations are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which the rock the Lord promised to build his church." Basil, Commentary on Isaiah, 2:66 (A.D. 375). "Not therefore on that Mount Zion does Isaias look down upon the valley, but on that holy mountain which is the church, that mountain which lifts its head over the whole Roman world under heaven...a church which is throughout the world, wherein there is one Catholic church." Optatus of Mileve, Against the Donatist, 3:2 (A.D. 384). "Petilianus said: 'If you declare that yon hold the Catholic Church, the word 'catholic' is merely the Greek equivalent for entire or whole. But it is clear that you are not in the whole, because you have gone aside into the part.' Augustine answered: I too indeed have attained to a very slight knowledge of the Greek language, scarcely to be called knowledge at all, yet I am not shameless in saying that I know that means not 'one,' but 'the whole;' and that means "according to the whole:" whence the Catholic Church received its name, according to the saying of the Lord, 'It is not for you to know the times, which the Father hath put in His own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and in Samaria, and even in the whole earth.' Here you have the origin of the name 'Catholic.' Augustine, Answer to Letters of Petilian, 2:38 [90] (A.D. 400). "It is an easier thing for the sun to be quenched, than for the church to be made invisible." John Chrysostom, In illud: vidi Dom. (ante A.D. 407). "For the church is in lofty and conspicuous, and well known to all men in every place. It is also lofty in another sense; for her thoughts have nothing earthly, but she is above all that is earthly, and with the eyes of the understanding, looks upon, as far as it is possible, the glory of God, and glories in doctrines truly exalted, concerning God ... Wherefore, with justice may the house of

God be called a mountain (known) by the understanding, and it is perfectly visible, as being raised upon the hills; and one may say of it, and with great cause, what as a notable illustration was uttered by the mouth of the Saviour: 'A city placed upon a hill cannot be hidden'" Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaias, (ante A.D. 429). -------------from http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/iren/iren3.html#Section3 Ireneous - Against heresies - Book 3 Chapter 1-1 Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews(3) in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. Chapter 3-2 . Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

PETER WAS THE FIRST POPE


Mateo 10: 1 - 8 1 Y llamando a sus doce discpulos, les dio poder sobre los espritus inmundos para expulsarlos, y para curar toda enfermedad y toda dolencia. 2 Los nombres de los doce Apstoles son stos: primero Simn, llamado Pedro, y su hermano
Andrs; Santiago el de Zebedeo y su hermano Juan; 3 Felipe y Bartolom; Toms y Mateo el publicano; Santiago el de Alfeo y Tadeo; 4 Simn el Cananeo y Judas el Iscariote, el mismo que le entreg

Compare: Isaiah 22-20-23: 20 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; 21 I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. 23 I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family; Mateo 16:17-19 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

from http://religion-cults.com/Christianity/o-chur.htm David and Peter: The shepherds of the People of God: done with "David": Jesus did with "Peter" what God had

In Ezekiel 34 God says repeatedly "I myself will look after and tend my sheep"... "I myself will pasture my sheep" (34:11-15)... but in verse 23, God says: "I will appoint one shepherd over my sheep to pasture them, my servant David; he shall pasture my sheep and be their shepherd"... and so, he who is loyal to David or his successors, belongs to the People of God, and he who is not loyal to David or his successors, does not belong to the People of God, even if he is a Jew born in Jerusalem, rather he is a rebel, or a heretic ("heretic" means "rebel")... Jesus did the same: In John 10 he repeats "I am the shepherd... I am the good shepherd"... but in John 21, after resurrection, Jesus says 3 times to Peter, and only to Peter, in front of the other Apostles, "feed my lambs... tend my sheep... feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17)... "my lambs"... "my sheep"... the lambs and sheep of Jesus!... so now, accordingly, he who is loyal to Peter or his successors, belongs to the only Church of Christ, and he who is not loyal to Peter or his successors, does not belong to the Church of Christ, even if he knows all the Bible by heart, he is a rebel, or a heretic...

John 21: 1-21 1 After this, Jesus revealed himself again to his disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. He revealed himself in this way. 2 Together were Simon Peter, Thomas called Didymus, Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, Zebedee's sons, 2 and two others of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing." They said to him, "We also will come with you." So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing. 4 When it was already dawn, Jesus was standing on the shore; but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus said to them, "Children, have you caught anything to eat?" They answered him, "No." 6 So he said to them, "Cast the net over the right side of the boat and you will find something." So they cast it, and were not able to pull it in because of the number of fish. 7 So the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he tucked in his garment, for he was lightly clad, and jumped into the sea. 8 The other disciples came in the boat, for they were not far from shore, only about a hundred yards, dragging the net with the fish. 9 When they climbed out on shore, they saw a charcoal fire with fish on it and bread 10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you just caught." 11 So Simon Peter went over and dragged the net ashore full of one hundred fifty-three 5 large fish. Even though there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, "Come, have breakfast." And none of the disciples dared to ask him, 6 "Who are you?" because they realized it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came over and took the bread and gave it to them, and in like manner the fish. 14 This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to his disciples after being raised from the dead. 15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER Scripture 1. The Primacy of Peter in Scripture Tradition / Church Fathers 1. Peter Built the Church in Rome 2. Primacy of Peters Apostolic See 3. Peters Successors Claim Authority over the Church http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are exceptions to the rule). Matt 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Act 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where

Peter is mentioned first among the apostles. Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. What other man has walked on water? This faith ultimately did not fail. Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ. Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father. Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head. Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority. Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ. Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth. Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings. Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him. Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him. Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree. Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader. Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ. Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men." Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples. Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration. Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven. Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles. Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first. Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33. John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse. John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet. John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred. John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church. John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God. John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see. John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles. Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room. Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course. Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel. Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles. Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ. Acts 5:3 - Peter declares first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority. Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power. Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation. Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority. Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among apostles and works healing of Aeneas. Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead. Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision. Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles). Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment. Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church. Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent. Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching. Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..." Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome. 1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul. 1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the only "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome. 2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer. 2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock. Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

from http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/iren/iren3.html#Section3 Ireneous - Against heresies Book 1 Chapter 10,3 the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said. Book 3 Chapter 1-1 Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews(3) in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. Chapter 3-2 . Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. Chapter 3,3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the

hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/pete.html

Testimony of Scripture The first witness to call, when treating the office of the papacy, is the Bible, because "dogma is by definition nothing other than an interpretation of Scripture."[1] This testimony cannot be ignored by any Christian. The question that must be asked of Scripture is whether or not Peter's role is in any way different from the rest of the Apostles.[2] There can be no question, for the attentive reader of the New Testament, that in addition to what the Apostles had in common, something set Peter apart and made him unique. Discounting self-reference, e.g. Peter and Paul naming themselves in their own epistles, Peter's name[3] appears more times in the New Testament than any other Apostle, including Paul.[4] Peter is always named first in lists of the Apostles in the synoptic Gospels (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:12-16; see also Acts 1:13), in spite of the fact that his brother Andrew was called before him (according to John 1:40-42). Matthew even uses the word "first"[5] to describe Peter in his list, without enumerating the rest. Sometimes the Apostles are simply referred to as "Simon/Peter and his companions" (Luke 9:32, Mark 1:36 & 16:7, Acts 2:14, 1 Cor. 15:5)! He frequently acted as their spokesman (Matt. 16:13-16 & 17:24, Mark 8:27-29, Luke 12:41, John 6:67-69), and because of this was the first to publicly proclaim the Gospel (Acts 2:14-40). God directly revealed to Peter Who Jesus Christ is (Matt. 16:17)[6] and the inclusion of the Gentiles (Acts 10:9-48). Clearly, scripture testifies, there is something different about Peter and his role in the Church.

It is Jesus Christ Himself Who gave Simon Bar-Jonah, the fisherman, this unique place among His twelve Apostles. The most obvious place to begin is Simon's name, which Jesus changed. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus said, "And I say to you [Simon], you are Peter [Petros], and upon this rock [petra] I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." The unfailing Church of Jesus Christ, in other words, is built upon Simon the Rock - Peter. Like the Patriarchs Abram/Abraham (Gen. 17:5) and Jacob/Israel (Gen. 32:28), Simon/Peter received a new identity from the Lord. Aha, Catholic opponents often say, here is a weakness! Petros (Petros, masculine) is not exactly the same word as petra (petra, feminine). The rock on which Jesus' Church is built is not Simon Peter, they claim, but Simon's confession of faith or perhaps Jesus Himself. The weakness of "the Petros/petra distinction argument" is that in Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus, the same word, kepha, would be used in both places. But how can we know with certainty that Jesus was speaking Aramaic and not Greek when He renamed Simon? John confirms it: "You are Simon Bar-Jonah; you will be called Kefas [Kefas is Kepha in Greek letters]" (John 1:42). John then explains to his readers, "[Kefas] is translated Petros." Using the Aramaic term, Matthew 16:18 reads "you are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build My Church." Catholics do not deny that Simon's confession and Jesus are truly and legitimately called "rock,"[7] but Simon Peter is the primary Rock Jesus is talking about in Matthew 16:18. Although the reception of a new name is significant in itself, as we know from the stories of Abraham and Israel, Matthew 16:18 also promises that it is on Simon Peter that Jesus' Church will be built. Even though the Apostles in general have been called a "foundation" (Eph. 2:20), Jesus singled Simon Peter out as the "Rock." A similar thing occurs in 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." "Binding and loosing"[8] is a charism given to all the Apostles (Matt. 18:18), but Peter is singled out for "the keys." He is their sole recipient. Something is common to all Apostles, but something is particular to Peter. Apologists who strictly equate Matthew 16:19 with 18:18[9] miss a rare but crucial biblical motif: "keys" equal authority. Consider the words of Jesus in Revelation 1:18: "Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the keys to death and hell." What does Jesus mean when He says He holds "the keys"? In Peter's words, Jesus has authority or rights over death: "it was impossible for [Jesus] to be held by [death]" (Acts 2:24). Jesus holds "the keys" of death, death does not hold Jesus. If "keys" represent authority, what kind of authority is Jesus conferring on Peter in Matthew 16:19? Jesus gives Peter "keys" to a Kingdom. What kind of King is Jesus? Jesus is a King in the line of David (Luke 1:32). So the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus mentions is nevertheless a truly Davidic Kingdom. Jesus possesses "the key" of David (Rev. 3:7), and it is within His authority as Davidic King to authorize Peter, which He does in Matthew 16:19. This is in keeping with the Old Testament practice of kings in the line of David. Jesus reigns through His ministers. Like other kings in the ancient middle east, kings in the line of David kept what we would call a "cabinet of ministers (or stewards)."[10] One might oversee the treasury, another the military, another stores of food, for example. From among these, one would be authorized as the chief or prime minister (vizier, majordomo), to direct and coordinate the administration of other ministers in the name and service of the king. The Patriarch Joseph once served in a similar capacity in Egypt (Gen. 41:37-46). An example of this office in Jerusalem may be found in Isaiah 22. Shebna, an unworthy "master of the palace" (Isa. 22:15), was being replaced by Eliakim. Eliakim, as the new prime minister, was "father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah,"[11] holding "the key" of the House of David, and what he "opened and shut" remained so (Isa. 22:20-24). Only the king himself outranked his prime minister in authority (Gen. 41:40).

Those apologists who try to collapse "the keys" into the more general "binding and loosing" can only do so by ignoring the historical and biblical significance of "the keys of the kingdom." "Keys" were only given to one man at a time, giving him a particular authority, not simply honor, over the rest of the king's ministers. Jesus gives "the keys" of His Kingdom to Peter alone among the Apostles; "the keys" are not mentioned in passages like Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23. The Apostles, familiar with Isaiah and with Israel's history, would have understood the imagery Jesus evoked. It need not have been any more explicit. Yet Jesus singled Peter out on other occasions as well. At the Last Supper, in the midst of foretelling Peter's betrayal, a very negative thing, Jesus gives Peter a particular positive mission. "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed that your [singular] own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you [singular] must strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:31-32). As James informs his readers, the prayers of a righteous man like Jesus avail much (Jas. 5:16b), and though Peter unfortunately denied knowing the Lord three times, he did turn and strengthen his brothers. One might say he did this in a number of ways. For example, Peter decided that, according to Scripture, a successor to Judas' office must be appointed (Acts 1:15-22) so that the original number of Apostles would not be diminished (weakened). Peter was also the first to command the baptism of Gentiles (Acts 10:46-48), an action which increased the number of Christians by leaps and bounds. As mentioned above, he was considered the first witness to the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:5) and was the first to explain the outpouring of the Spirit and preach the Gospel publicly (Acts 2:14-40). Peter is again singled out by Jesus in John 21:15-19. A few things make this passage interesting. Jesus asked Peter if Peter loved Him, in the agape (charity) sense. Peter responded that he loved Jesus in the philos (friendship) sense. This exchange is repeated. Finally, Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him in the philos sense, and Peter said Jesus knew everything, and that he loved Him in the philos sense. On the one hand, one could say that Peter's distress or shame in verse 17 arises from the triple denial parallel, but it may have arisen from his inability to affirmatively answer the question that Jesus was actually asking (or some combination of the two). Regardless, Jesus gives Peter a particular charge each time, to govern[12] and feed Jesus' sheep. Peter's personal failures in faithfulness, clearly emphasized in this passage, do not seem to have any effect on Jesus' choice: He still wants to entrust Peter with His flock, and only Peter is given this direct instruction.[13] Jesus' last "Follow me" statements (apparently to the cross) are directed to Peter alone.[14] Of the Twelve, only Simon Peter received a new identity from the Lord, only Simon Peter was the "Rock" on which Jesus promised to build His Church, only Peter received the "keys" of prime ministerial authority from Jesus, only Peter was charged by Jesus to strengthen his brothers, and only Peter was given the threefold charge of governing and feeding Jesus' sheep. The language of Peter's primacy, in Scripture, is no mere "primacy of honor." Peter is given crucial duties and responsibilities and authorized to carry them out.[15] Jesus clearly makes Peter a servant, leader, and unifier to all His Apostles and disciples. This is the testimony of Scripture. Testimony of Sacred Tradition The scriptural testimony to Petrine primacy is both substantial and entirely trustworthy, but it is not alone. Sacred Tradition is a second reliable witness to the authentic Christian faith. The historical practice of the Church and the writings of the Fathers, with the Bible, testify that Peter was truly one of the Twelve but also more. Petrine primacy is not an invention of the 9th century, or the 11th, or the 19th. Understanding and expression of the office have grown like a mustard tree from its seed (Matt. 13:31-32), but the office of the papacy has been with us since its institution by Jesus Christ.[16]

Why do we need a second testimony? A second testimony is important because even heretics appeal to Scripture to defend their doctrines.[17] "The devil himself has quoted Scripture texts," said St. Jerome, "we could all, while preserving the letter of Scripture, read into it some novel doctrine."[18] To show that we are not such Bible-quoting heretics, Catholics appeal to the Church's Sacred Tradition. Patristic testimony supporting Petrine primacy (of authority, not merely honor) is plentiful. Most important are the sources which predate the East/West Schism, and among those, the Eastern Fathers. Here are some samples of things said about Peter and his successors at Rome (emphasis added): Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea [Peter] that powerful and great one of the Apostles, who, on account of his excellence, was leader of all the rest. The very head of the Apostles. Set above all the rest.[19] Ephraim of Syria [As if spoken by Jesus:] Simon my follower, I have made you the foundation of My holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of all who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is the life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be the executor of all My treasures. I have given you the keys of My Kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all My treasures! To whom, O Lord, didst Thou entrust that most precious pledge of the heavenly keys? To Bar Jonas, the Prince of the Apostles, with whom, I implore Thee, may I share Thy bridal chamber... Our Lord chose Simon Peter and appointed him chief of the Apostles, foundation of the holy Church and guardian of His establishment. He appointed him head of the Apostles and commanded him to feed His flock and teach it laws for preserving the purity of its beliefs.[20] Peter deservedly received the Vicariate [of Christ] over His people.[21] Bishop Gregory of Nazianzen (the younger) Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called a Rock and is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church...[22] Bishop Gregory of Nyssa The memory of Peter, the Head of the Apostles, is celebrated; and magnified indeed with him are the other members of the Church; but [upon him] is the Church of God firmly established. For he is, agreeably to the gift conferred upon him by the Lord, that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church.[23] Bishop Basil the Great And when he, the instrument of such and so great a judgment; he the minister of the so great wrath of God upon a sinner; that blessed Peter, who was preferred before all the other disciples; who alone received a greater testimony and blessing than the rest; he to whom were entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, &c.[24] Archbishop Epiphanius of Salamis [On the Father's revelation to Peter] This was befitting in that First of the Apostles, that firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and "the gates of hell will not prevail against it." "The gates of

hell" are heretics and heresiarchs. For in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of Heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all the subtle questions of faith....to him was entrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master.[25] Bishop John Chrysostom Peter, that Leader of the Choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the Brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.[26] Peter, the Leader of the Choir, the Mouth of all the Apostles, the Head of that Tribe, the Ruler of the whole world, the Foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ....It is not I who say these things, but the beloved Lord. "If thou lovest Me," He says, "feed my sheep." Let us see whether he has the primacy of a shepherd.[26] Peter so washed away [his] denial so as to be even made the first Apostle, and to have the whole world committed to him.[27] And should any one say, "Why then did James [instead of Peter] receive the throne of Jerusalem?": this is my answer: that He [Jesus] appointed this man [Peter] not teacher of that throne, but of the habitable globe.[28] Maximos the Confessor The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confesses the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Savior, the gates of hell never prevail against her, that she has the keys of orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High.[29] John of Damascus It is to [Peter], as to the most faithful servant, that Jesus entrusted the rudder of all the Church, this Church which He acquired with His blood.[30] This list of quotes is not exhaustive. In addition to the words of the Fathers, one must consider their actions - the docility shown to the papacy, the requests for approval and aid, and the like. I recommend Jurgens' Faith of the Early Fathers vols. 1-3; Jesus, Peter, & the Keys; Cardinal Newman's An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine; and other such resources to the interested. Many Eastern Orthodox apologists, knowing the strength of the Patristic testimony in favor of Petrine primacy, argue that when the Fathers (especially those of the East) used this language, they meant it only as an honor to Peter. In other words, they were only trying to say "Peter is a great saint, and his successors hold a position of esteem among us. We like him a lot." Certainly, Eastern Orthodox apologists assure us, they did not mean Peter or his successors had a unique duty to or authority in the Church. Not only does this argument fail to account for the actual language of the Fathers,[31] it ultimately accuses those monumental Doctors and Saints of the basest insincere flattery. If the Fathers did not really mean what they said about Peter and his successors when they praised them, they never should have said it.[32] On the contrary, the Fathers meant what they said; their praises were not empty but directed towards a

reality. The Fathers really believed that Peter (though sharing a common office with the other Apostles) was also charged by Jesus with a sacred office and duty particular to him and his successors, given the right (authority) to carry out his mission, and given the blessings and grace necessary to serve. This is what the Church is supposed to esteem and what the Fathers did esteem: service. Conclusion A point of clarification is long overdue. Many people in modernity equate the word "authority" with "arbitrary power" and "power" with mere "brute force." To most moderns, might makes right. This is not what the Catholic Church means by authority. When we speak of the pope's authority we mean, rather, that the pope has been given the right, by the Lord, to maintain unity in the Church in the Lord's order of faith and morals. He has this right, with or without "might," because he was given the responsibility or the dictate of service: to serve the Lord by being Servant to the Lord's ministers and faithful. The only "power" he has, really, is the power of God's grace which enables him to serve. Like Jesus, Peter truly "leads" and "rules" by self-sacrificial service. The Petrine office was, as Scripture and Sacred Tradition (even in the East prior to the Schism) both faithfully testify, established by Jesus Christ for the service and benefit of His Church and all her members. Though the papacy was not born full grown, like Athena from Zeus' head, it is certainly not a late breaking Western innovation by any stretch of the imagination. Footnotes For further reading Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess (Queenship) - a biblical and patristic source book Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church by Stephen K. Ray, former Baptist (Ignatius) - source book and apologetic; fewer sources but more readable The Russian Church & the Papacy by Vladimir Soloviev (Catholic Answers) - an abridgment of Russia & the Universal Church by the great Eastern Christian philosophical genius An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Cardinal Newman, former Anglican (University of Notre Dame) - longer than most "essays" but valuable for understanding Christian history Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid (Basilica Press) - short answers to the most common objections Related links Sts. Peter and Paul in the Roman catacombsPapacy Links - Dave Armstrong's extensive library of links The Papacy: God's Gift to the Church - no extensive sources, introductory thoughts An Exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19 - Bob Sungenis, former Protestant, wrote this for Our Sunday Visitor's The Catholic Answer magazine Peter (and His Successors) in Rome - Catholic Answers' sample of ancient evidence Apostolic Succession - Catholic Answers' sample of ancient evidence Petrine Succession - Catholic Answers' sample of ancient evidence List of Popes - popes good and bad, a chronological list from Peter to John Paul II Peter Is the Rock - Catholic Answers' sample of ancient evidence Joseph Georg (Josip Juraj) Strossmayer - a Catholic Encyclopedia article; many anti-Catholics (from fundamentalist Bart Brewer to Eastern Orthodox Fr. Alexey Young) like to cite a forgery attributed to this Catholic bishop Pope Fiction - an article from Envoy magazine by Pat Madrid

The Eastern Church Defends Petrine Primacy - quotes from the Eastern Fathers, but weak on citation An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine - by John Henry Cardinal Newman

FUERA DE LA IGLESIA NO HAY SALVACION


Lk 21:8: He answered, "See that you not be deceived, for many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he,' and 'The time has come.' 3 Do not follow them! Jn 10,16. I have other sheep 7 that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd. 1 John 2:18-19 18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number

Lo que la Iglesia de Cristo ha enseado sobre este tema a lo largo de 20 siglos: --------------------Dogma "Extra Ecclesiam, nulla salus" en la Tradicin de la Iglesia: Padres anteriores a San Agustn San Ignacio de Antioqua (principios s.II) Carta a los filadelfios 3,3 "No os engais, hermanos mos: si alguno sigue al que se separa `no heredar el Reino de Dios'. El que camina en sentencia ajena, ese tal no se conforma a la Pasin". Por tanto, segn San Ignacio, no slo es slo el provocador del cisma el que se condena, sino tambin todos los que le siguen.

San Ireneo de Lyon (finales s.II) Adversus haereses 3:24,1 "En la Iglesia Dios ha puesto apstoles, profetas, maestros y todos los dems dones del Espritu, que no comparten aquellos que no se apresuran a la Iglesia, sino que se autoexcluyen de la vida, por una mente perversa y un modo de actuar peor. Porque donde est la Iglesia, est el Espritu de Dios, y donde est el Espritu de Dios est la Iglesia y toda gracia" San Ireneo, que escribi esas palabras contra los gnsticos, que eran los cismticos de aquella poca, deja muy claro que los que no estn en la Iglesia, se autoexcluyen de la vida. Y, ya de paso, afirma esa verdad tan importante que ensea que donde est la Iglesia, est el Espritu de Dios. Orgenes (principios y mediados del s.III) l, siendo el pionero de la exgesis alegrica de las Escrituras, incluye la advertencia de que no hay salvacin fuera de la Iglesia, en una homila basada en el segundo captulo de Josu, que relata la historia

de los dos espas hebreos en Jeric, que se refugiaron en la casa de la prostituta Rajab. Orgenes vio en esta casa un smbolo de la Iglesia, dado que fue lugar de salvacin en la ciudad que estaba a punto de ser destruida. Su aplicacin de la historia del AT a la vida de la Iglesia fue la siguiente: Homiliae in Jesu Nave 3,5 "Se da esta orden a la muejr que haba sido antes prostituta: `Todo aquellos que se encuentren en tu casa sern salvos. Pero con respecto a aquellos que salgan de tu casa, estaremos libres de este juramento que te hemos hecho'. Por lo tanto, si alguien quiere salvarse, que entre en la casa de esta que fue una vez prostituta. Incluso si alguien de ese pueblo quiere salvarse djenle entrar en esta casa, para que pueda encontrar la salvacin. Djenle entrar en esta casa en la que la sangre de Cristo es signo de redencin... As, que nadie se engae: fuera de esta casa, esto es, fuera de la Iglesia, nadie se salva. Si alguien sale, es responsable de su propia muerte" Pueden resultar tiles aqu algunas indicaciones exegticas. La "mujer que haba sido prostituta" sugiere la imagen de la Iglesia de los gentiles como el pecador arrepentido: ella que haba vivido en un vicio pagano es ahora la casta esposa de Cristo. El cordn escarlata que Rajab descolg por su ventana era el smbolo dirigido a los invasores hebreos para que su casa duera respetada. Para Orgenes significa la sangre de Cristo, signo de redencin de la Iglesia. La invitacin de Orgenes a los miembros de "ese pueblo" se dirige claramente a los judos que no haban aceptado el mensaje cristiano de salvacin, pero la advertencia ms importante de este pasaje se dirige claramente a aquellos que salen de la nica casa en que se encuentra la salvacin. De la misma forma que pasaba en Jeric, cualquiera quesaliera sera tambin responsable de su propia muerte. Esto se refiere claramente a los cristianos que, habiendo estado una vez en la Iglesia, la dejaban para unirse a una hereja o secta cismtica. No hay salvacin fuera de la Iglesia y aquellos que se van son los nicos culpables de su propia perdicin.

San Cipriano de Cartago (mediados s.III) Epist 4,4 "Que no piensen que el camino de la vida o la salvacin existe para ellos, si han rehusado obedecer a los obispos y presbteros, dado que el Seor dice en el libro de Deuteronomio: 'Si alguno procede insolentemente, no escuchando al sacerdote ni al juez, ese hombre morir'. Y entonces se les mataba con la espada... pero ahora, los orgullosos e insolentes son muertos con la espada del Espritu cunado son arrojados fuera de la Iglesia. Porque no pueden vivir fuera, ya que slo hay una casa de Dios, y no puede haber salvacin para nadie si no es en la Iglesia" En esa epstola estaba hablando de aquellos que estaban en peligro de excomunin. Pero ciertamente para Cipriano la unidad de la Iglesia era esencialmente una unidad de amor, y por tanto, cualquiera que violara esa unidad mediante hereja o cisma estaba pecando contra la virtud de la caridad. Llega a la conclusin que era de esperar: Epist 73,21 "Y no puede servir para la salvacin al hereje ni el bautismo de la confesin pblica ni el de sangre ,porque no hay salvacin fuera de la Iglesia" Y antes haba escrito sobre los cismticos: Epist 52,1 "Cmo puede un hombre que no est con la esposa de Cristo y en su Iglesia, estar con Cristo?" En su obra "Sobre la Unidad de la Iglesia", San Cipriano retoma su idea de que el martirio no puede purgar la pena del cisma: La unidad de la Iglesia, 14 "Estos, aunque dieran la vida por la confesin del Nombre, no lavaran si mancha siquiera con su propia sangre. Inexpiable y grave es el pecado de la discordia, hasta el punto de que no con el martirio se perdona. No puede ser mrtir quien no est en la Iglesia. No podr llegar al reino quien abandona a la que ha de reinar. Cristo nos dio la paz, nos orden vivir concordes y unnimes, nos mand guardar ntegros e inviolados los vnculos del amor y de la caridad. No puede, por tanto, presentarse como mrtir quien no ha mantenido la caridad fraterna. Esto es lo que ensea y atestigua el apstols Pablo `aunque entregara mi cuerpo a las llamas, si no tengo caridad, nada me aprovecha'" Un poco antes, en el mismo libro, dice lo siguiente acerca de los cismticos: La

unidad de la Iglesia 6,77 "La esposa de Cristo no puede ser adltera, inmaculada y pura como es. Quien separndose de la Iglesia, se une a una adltera, se separa de las promesas de la Iglesia, y no alcanzar los premios de Cristo quien abandona su Iglesia. ste se convierte en un extrao, un sacrlego y un enemigo. No puede ya tener a Dios por padre quien no tiene a la Iglesia por madre. Si pudo salvarse alguien fuera del arca de No, tambin se salvar quien estuviera fuera de la Iglesia. Quien destruye la paz de Cristo y la concordia, acta contra Cristo. Y quien recoje en otra parte, fuera de la Iglesia, desparrama la Iglesia de Cristo. Quien no mantiene esta unidad, tampoco tiene la ley de Dios, ni la fe en el Padre y el Hijo, ni la vida y la salvacin". Bien, como podis ver, el juicio de los primeros Padres de la Iglesia contra los que decidan salirse de la Iglesia era dursimo. Recordemos que el Vaticano II afirma que no es lo mismo el que se separa HOY de la Iglesia que el que nace ya en una de esas comunidades cristianas separadas. El primero es culpable -aunque esto hay que matizarlo-, mientras que el segundo no lo es. Ahora bien, como ya veremos ms adelante en otros escritos, no es lo mismo el que sale de la Iglesia porque no ha recibido una educacin o catequesis adecuada que el que lo hace por puro orgullo o maledicencia.

A continuacin seguir con lo que ense San Agustn y sus contemporneos, as como lo que dijeron en los siglos siguientes. ---------------Ahora nos toca ver cul fue la enseanza del santo de Hipona acerca de los que estaban separados de la Iglesia catlica. Epist 141,5 "Cualquiera, pues, que se haya separado de esrt Iglesia Catlica, aunque crea que vive virtuosamente, est separado de la unidad de Cristo por ese solo crimen: no alcanzar la vida, sino que la ira de Dios permanece sobre l" De Baptismo III,16.21 "El amor del que el Apstol dice:`El amor de Dios ha sido derramado sobre nuestros corazones por el Espritu Santo que se nos ha dado'(Rom5,5), es la caridad que no tienen los que se han desgajado de la comunin de la Iglesia Catlica; y, por esto, aunque `hablaran las lenguas de los hombres y de los ngeles'(1Cor 13,1-3)... en nada les aprovecha. Porque no tienen el amor de Dios, los que no aman la unidad de la Iglesia, por lo cual se dice con razn que el Espritu Santo no se recibe si no es en la Iglesia Catlica" Epist 185,50 "No ser partcipe de la divina caridad quien es enemigo de la unidad. Y as, no tienen el Espritu Santo los que estn fuera de la Iglesia". En cuanto a los sacramentos recibidos en una secta cismtica o hertica, San Agustn era menos drstico que San Cipriano de Cartago, el cual los consideraba nulos de pleno derecho, pero con todo, el santo de Hipona no era especialmente "optimista" ante los frutos finales de dichos sacramentos si la persona que los reciba permaneca en la secta: De Baptismo III,10.13 "Quien recibe el bautismo entre los herejes o en algn cisma fuera de la comunin de la Iglesia, se queda sin percibir fruto alguno en cuanto participa de la perversidad de los herejes y cismticos".

Y, refirindose a un obispo donatista (protestante de aquellos tiempos), Agustn deca: Sermo ad Caesariensis ecclesiae plebem 6 "Fuera de la Iglesia l puede tenerlo todo menos la salvacin: puede tener el honor del episcopado, puede tener los sacramentos, puede cantar el `aleluya ', puede responder `amn', puede tener el Evangelio, puede tener y predicar la fe en el nombre del Padre y del Hijo y del Espritu Santo; pero nunca podr encontrar la salvacin sino en la Iglesia Catlica" An ms, San Agustn, al igual que algunos de sus predecesores, mantena una opinin igualmente muy drstica acerca de las posibilidad de que el martirio les sirviera a los cismticos de algo: De Baptismo IV,17.24 "Ni este bautismo aprovecha el hereje, aunque haya perdido la vida fuera de la Iglesia confesando a Cristo. Y es una gran verdad: al morir fuera de la Iglesia manifiesta bien claramente que no tiene la caridad de que habla del Apstol". Como veis, muy "ecumnico" no era nuestro querido hermano, No obstante, Agustn saba diferenciar entre los causantes del cisma y aquellos que nacan y se bautizaban en un grupo cismtico: De Baptismo 1,5.6 "Por lo que se refiere a los que por ignorancia se bautizan all (en un grupo cismtico), pensando que aquella es la Iglesia de Cristo, si se les compara con los anteriores (culpables de iniciar el cisma), su pecado es menor, aunque queden malheridos por el pecado del cisma. Y no dejan de pecar gravemente porque los otros pequen todava ms gravemente." Podra aadir algn otro texto pero creo que con esos es ms que suficiente para que os deis cuenta de que el ms grande telogo latino de la Antiguedad, tena las cosas muy claras respecto a la salvacin de los que no formaban parte de la Iglesia catlica. En los debates de catlicos con protestantes que s tienen en gran aprecio a los primeros Padres de la Iglesia, includo el santo de Hipona, los catlicos se encontrarn con que los protestantes usan un argumento al que se agarran como lapas; "la Iglesia catlica de aquellos tiempos no tiene nada que ver con la del siglo XVI o la del XXI".... NECESITAN ese argumento porque si no tendran que aceptar que los cristianos de los primeros siglos les acusan con el dedo como cismticos. El problema es que se puede demostrar muy fcilmente -eso sera motivo para otro mensaje- que la Iglesia catlica del siglo XVI o de nuestros das, an con todos sus errores y fallos, es la misma Iglesia catlica de los primeros siglos. Y desde luego el protestantismo NO PUDO NUNCA haber sido la fe de Agustn, de Cipriano, de Ireneo y de todos los padres de la Iglesia. Todava los ortodoxos podran mantener que ellos son herederos de la Iglesia de los primeros siglos. Los protestantes, jams.

Bueno, pues podemos seguir viendo cmo fue evolucionando el dogma a lo largo de la tradicin: Seguiremos con este breve estudio histrico dando un salto mortal con doble pirueta hacia adelante, desde el siglo V, donde dejamos a San Agustn, hasta el siglo XIII, siglo donde desarroll su magisterio Santo Toms de Aquino, quizs el ms grande telogo que ha dado la Iglesia Catlica en toda su historia. No es que entre medias no hubiera nadie que tratara el tema, pero as vamos aligerando el paso A principios del siglo XIII (1208) el papa Inocencio III impuso una confesin de fe a los valdenses que queran reconciliarse con la Iglesia catlica. En dicha confesin apareca el siguiente prrafo: "Creemos de todo corazn y profesamos con nuestros labios una sola Iglesia, no la de los herejes, sino la Iglesia Romana, catlica y apostlica, fuera de la cual creemos que nadie puede salvarse"

En el cuarto concilio Lateranense (1215), bajo el mismo papa, promulg una definicin de fe catlica contra los herejes albigenses: "Y hay una sola Iglesia universal de los fieles, fuera de la cual no se salva absolutamente nadie"

Leamos ahora a Santo Toms de Aquino en su comentario dobre el decreto de Inocencio III: In I Decret., 16,305 "Seguidamente, l (Papa Inocencio) llega al artculo sobre el efecto de la gracia. En primer lugar, habla sobre el efecto de la gracia en relacin a la unidad de la Iglesia, diciendo: `Hay una Iglesia universal de los fieles, fuera de la cual no se salva nadie en absoluto'. As la unidad de la Iglesia depende primariamente de su unidad de fe, porque la Iglesia no es otra cosa que la congregacin de los fieles. Dado que es imposible agradar a Dios sin fe, no puede haber lugar se salvacin ms que en la Iglesia. Adems, la salvacin de los fieles es consumada mediante los sacramentos de la Iglesia, en los que es operativo el poder de la pasin de Cristo".

En su comentario al "Libro de las Sentencias" de Pedro Lombardo, Toms dice: In IV Sent. d9, qI, a.5, sol.4, ad2 "La res (realidad) de este sacramento es la unidad de la Iglesia, fuera de la cual no hay ni salvacin ni vida"

En su comentario al Credo Apostlico, explicando el artculo sobre la "Iglesia una", dice: In Symbolum art 9 "Nadie debera despreciar a la Iglesia, o permitir que le echen y le expulsen de ella, porque hay una sola Iglesia en la que los hombres se salvan, del mismo modo que no pudo salvarse nadie que estuviera fuera del arca de No".

Algo as vuelve a repetir en su Summa theologiae: Summa theologiae III, q.73, a.3. "La cosa significada es la unidad del cuerpo mstico sin la que no puede haber salvacin, ya que fuera de la Iglesia no hay salvacin, como tampoco la haba en tiempo del diluvio fuera del arca de No, que significaba la Iglesia".

Y, por si la cosa no quedaba clara, Santo Toms dijo tambin lo siguiente en su libro contra los ortodoxos (griegos): Contra errores graecorum, pars 2, cap 32 "Ostenditur etiam, quod subess Romano Pontific sit de necessitate salutis" (esa frase viene a decir algo as como que es necesario estar bajo el Romano Pontfice para ser salvo)

Como veis, Santo Toms no hace sino retomar lo que la Iglesia haba venido enseando desde tiempos muy antiguos.

Justo a comienzos del siglo siguiente (1302)- el XIV-, el papa Bonifacio VIII public su Bula Unam sanctam en la que dijo lo siguiente: "Por imperativo de la fe estamos obligados a creer y a sostener que hay una santa Iglesia catlica y apostlica. Nosotros la creemos firmemente y abiertamente la confesamos. Fuera de ella no hay salvacin ni remisin de los pecados... Ella representa el nico cuerpo mstico, cuya cabeza es Cristo, y Dios la cabeza de Cristo. En ella hay `un solo Seor, una sola fe, un solo bautismo'(Ef 4,5). Porque, en efecto, una sola fue el arca de No... tena un solo piloto y un nico

jefe: No. Fuera de ella pereci todo cuanto exista sobre la tierra". "La Iglesia, pues, que es una y nica, tiene un solo cuerpo, una sola cabeza; no dos, como un monstruo. Es decir, Cristo y el vicario de Cristo: Pedro y el sucesor de Pedro. Pues dice el Seor al mismo Pedro: `Apacienta mis ovejas'(Jn 21,17). `Mis ovejas', dijo, y de modo general, no stas o aquellas en particular; por lo que se entiende que se las confi todas. Si, pues, los griegos (ortodoxos) u otros afirman que ellos no han sido confiadosa Pedro y sus sucesores, tendrn que confesar que no son ovejas de Cristo; puesto que el Seor dice en Juan que hay `un solo rebao y un solo pastor'(Jn 10,16)" (Este ltimo prrafo es casi lo mismo que lo que dijo en vila el cardenal Castrilln Hoyos all por noviembre del ao pasado). Y al final de la Bula dice esa famosa frase que tanta polmica caus despus: "Por consiguiente, declaramos, afirmamos, definimos y pronunciamos que el someterse al Romano Pontfice es a toda creatura humana absolutamente necesario para la salvacin". (Recordad las palabras de Santo Toms)

El conocido, no me preguntis porqu, como concilio de Florencia (que empez en Basilea -1431-, sigui en Ferrara -1438-, luego en Florencia -1439- y acabo en Roma -1445) tuvo como objetivo el lograr la reunificacin con las Iglesias orientales separadas. Entre dichas iglesias estaban las Coptas, tambin conocidas como Jacobitas (fundadas por el apstol Santiago). Para que dichos jacobitas volvieran a la comunin con Roma se les propuso un credo que deberan aceptar, en el cual apareca, entre otras cosas, lo siguiente: "La sacrosanta Iglesia romana... cree firmemente, confiesa y predica que ninguno que est fuera de la Iglesia catlica, no slo pagano, sino aun judo o hereje o cismtico, podr alcanzar la vida eterna; por el contrario, que irn al fuego eterno que est preparado para el diablo y sus ngeles, a menos que antes de morir sean agregados a ella. Y tan importante es la unidad del cuerpo de la Iglesia, que slo los que permanecen en ella les aprovechan los sacramentos de la Iglesia para vida eterna. Y que slo a esllos les proporcionan frutos de vida eterna los ayunos, las limosnas y las restantes obras de piedad y los ejercicios de la asctica cristiana. Y que por muchas limosnas que haga, aunque derrame su sangre por Cristo, nadie puede salvarse si no permaneciere en el seno y en la unidad de la Iglesia catlica".

-----------Antes de seguir, hagamos un alto en el camino y veamos cul es hoy la formulacin de dicho dogma. Para ello leeremos lo que dijo el Concilio Vaticano II y el Catecismo.

Vaticano II Lumen Gentium: La Iglesia se siente unida por varios vnculos con todos lo que se honran con el nombre de cristianos, por estar bautizados, aunque no profesan ntegramente la fe, o no conservan la unidad de comunin bajo el Sucesor de Pedro. Pues conservan la Sagrada Escritura como norma de fe y de vida, y manifiestan celo apostlico, creen con amor en Dios Padre todopoderoso, y en el hijo de Dios Salvador, estn marcados con el bautismo, con el que se unen a Cristo, e incluso reconocen y reciben en sus propias Iglesias o comunidades eclesiales otros sacramentos. Muchos de ellos tienen episcopado, celebran la sagrada Eucarista y fomentan la piedad hacia la Virgen Madre de Dios. Hay que contar tambin la comunin de oraciones y de otros beneficios espirituales; ms an, cierta unin en el Espritu Santo, puesto que tambin obra en ellos su virtud santificante por medio

de dones y de gracias, y a algunos de ellos les dio la fortaleza del martirio. De esta forma el Espritu promueve en todos los discpulos de Cristo el deseo y la colaboracin para que todos se unan en paz en un rebao y bajo un solo Pastor, como Cristo determin. Para cuya consecucin la madre Iglesia no cesa de orar, de esperar y de trabajar, y exhorta a todos sus hijos a la santificacin y renovacin para que la seal de Cristo resplandezca con mayores claridades sobre el rostro de la Iglesia. ....... El sagrado Concilio pone ante todo su atencin en los fieles catlicos y ensea, fundado en la Escritura y en la Tradicin, que esta Iglesia peregrina es necesaria para la Salvacin. Pues solamente Cristo es el Mediador y el camino de la salvacin, presente a nosotros en su Cuerpo, que es la Iglesia, y El, inculcando con palabras concretas la necesidad de la fe y del bautismo (cf. Mc., 16,16; Jn., 3,5), confirm a un tiempo la necesidad de la Iglesia, en la que los hombres entran por el bautismo como puerta obligada. Por lo cual no podran salvarse quienes, sabiendo que la Iglesia catlica fue instituida por Jesucristo como necesaria, rehusaran entrar o no quisieran permanecer en ella. Unitatis Redintegratio En esta una y nica Iglesia de Dios, ya desde los primeros tiempos, se efectuaron algunas escisiones que el Apstol condena con severidad, pero en tiempos sucesivos surgieron discrepancias mayores, separndose de la plena comunin de la Iglesia no pocas comunidades, a veces no sin responsabilidad de ambas partes. pero los que ahora nacen y se nutren de la fe de Jesucristo dentro de esas comunidades no pueden ser tenidos como responsables del pecado de la separacin, y la Iglesia catlica los abraza con fraterno respeto y amor; puesto que quienes creen en Cristo y recibieron el bautismo debidamente, quedan constituidos en alguna comunin, aunque no sea perfecta, con la Iglesia catlica.

Efectivamente, por causa de las varias discrepancias existentes entre ellos y la Iglesia catlica, ya en cuanto a la doctrina, y a veces tambin en cuanto a la disciplina, ya en lo relativo a la estructura de la Iglesia, se interponen a la plena comunin eclesistica no pocos obstculos, a veces muy graves, que el movimiento ecumenista trata de superar. Sin embargo, justificados por la fe en el bautismo, quedan incorporados a Cristo y, por tanto, reciben el nombre de cristianos con todo derecho y justamente son reconocidos como hermanos en el Seor por los hijos de la Iglesia catlica.

Es ms: de entre el conjunto de elementos o bienes con que la Iglesia se edifica y vive, algunos, o mejor, muchsimos y muy importantes pueden encontrarse fuera del recinto visible de la Iglesia catlica: la Palabra de Dios escrita, la vida de la gracia, la fe, la esperanza y la caridad, y algunos dones interiores del Espritu Santo y elementos visibles; todo esto, que proviene de Cristo y a El conduce, pertenece por derecho a la nica Iglesia de Cristo.

Los hermanos separados practican no pocos actos de culto de la religin cristiana, los cuales, de varias formas, segn la diversa condicin de cada Iglesia o comunidad, pueden, sin duda alguna, producir la vida de la gracia, y hay que confesar que son aptos para dejar abierto el acceso a la comunin de la salvacin.

Por consiguiente, aunque creamos que las Iglesias y comunidades separadas tienen sus defectos, no estn desprovistas de sentido y de valor en el misterio de la salvacin, porque el Espritu de Cristo no ha rehusado servirse de ellas como medios de salvacin, cuya virtud deriva de la misma plenitud de la gracia y de la verdad que se confi a la Iglesia.

Los hermanos separados, sin embargo, ya particularmente, ya sus comunidades y sus iglesias, no gozan de aquella unidad que Cristo quiso dar a los que regener y vivific en un cuerpo y en una vida nueva y que manifiestan la Sagrada Escritura y la Tradicin venerable de la Iglesia. Solamente por medio de la Iglesia catlica de Cristo, que es auxilio general de la salvacin, puede conseguirse la plenitud total de los medios salvficos. Creemos que el Seor entreg todos los bienes de la Nueva Alianza a un solo colegio apostlico, a saber, el que preside Pedro, para constituir un solo Cuerpo de Cristo en la tierra, al que tienen que incorporarse totalmente todos los que de alguna manera pertenecen ya al Pueblo de Dios. Pueblo que durante su peregrinacin por la tierra, aunque permanezca sujeto al pecado, crece en Cristo y es conducido suavemente por Dios, segn sus inescrutables designios, hasta que arribe gozoso a la total plenitud de la gloria eterna en la Jerusaln celestial.

Acerca de la realidad de las iglesias protestantes separadas de Roma, la Unitatis Redintegratio dice tambin lo siguiente:

Las Iglesias y comunidades eclesiales que se disgregaron de la Sede Apostlica Romana, bien en aquella gravsima perturbacin que comenz en el Occidente ya a finales de la Edad Media, bien en tiempos sucesivos, estn unidas con la Iglesia catlica por una afinidad de lazos y obligaciones peculiares por haber desarrollado en los tiempos pasados una vida cristiana multisecular en comunin eclesistica.

Puesto que estas Iglesias y comunidades eclesiales por la diversidad de su origen, de su doctrina y de su vida espiritual, discrepan bastante no solamente de nosotros, sino tambin entre s, es tarea muy difcil describirlas cumplidamente, cosa que no pretendemos hacer aqu....... .... Hay que reconocer, ciertamente que entre estas Iglesias y comunidades y la Iglesia catlica hay discrepancias esenciales no slo de ndole histrica, sociolgica, psicolgica y cultural, sino, ante todo, de interpretacin de la verdad revelada.

Aparte del Vaticano II, podemos ver tambin lo que nos dice el Catecismo de nuestra Iglesia, el cual, por cierto, cita profusamente al Vaticano II en este tema:

Art 816 "La nica Iglesia de Cristo...., Nuestro Salvador, despus de su resurreccin, la entreg a Pedro para que la pastoreara. Le encarg a l y a los dems apstoles que la extendieran y la gobernaran... Esta Iglesia, constituida y ordenada en este mundo como una sociedad, subsiste en ["subsistit in"] la Iglesia catlica, gobernada por el sucesor de Pedro y por los obispos en comunin con l". El decreto sobre Ecumenismo del Concilio Vaticano II, explicita: "Solamente por medio de la Iglesia catlica de Cristo, que es auxilio general de salvacin, puede alcanzarse la plenitud total de los medios de salvacin. Creemos que el Seor confi todos los bienes de la Nueva Alianza a un nico colegio apostlico presidido por Pedro, para constituir un solo Cuerpo de Cristo en la tierra, al cual deben incorporarse plenamente los que de algn modo pertenecen ya al Pueblo de Dios"

Art 817 De hecho, "en esta una y nica Iglesia de Dios, aparecieron ya desde los primeros tiempos algunas escisiones que el apstol reprueba severamente como condenables; y en siglos posteriores surgieron disensiones ms amplias y comunidades no pequeas se separaron de la comunin plena con la Iglesia catlica y, a veces, no sin culpa de los hombres de ambas partes". Tales rupturas que lesionan la unidad del Cuerpo de Cristo (se distingue la hereja, la apostasa y el cisma) no se producen sin el pecado de los hombres: Ubi peccata sunt, ibi est multitudo, ibi schismata, ibi haereses, ibi discussiones. Ubi autem virtus, ibi singularitas, ibi unio, ex quo omnium credentium erat cor unum et anima una ("Donde hay pecados, all hay desunin, cismas, herejes, discusiones. Pero donde hay virtud, all hay unin, de donde resultaba que todos los creyentes tenan un solo corazn y una sola alma", Orgenes, hom in Ezech 9,1)

Art 818 Los que nacen hoy en las comunidades surgidas de tales rupturas "y son instruidos en la fe de Cristo, no pueden ser acusados del pecado de la separacin y la Iglesia catlica les abraza con respeto y amor fraterno... justificados por la fe en el bautismo, se han incorporado a Cristo; por tanto, con todo derecho se honran con el nombre de cristianos y son reconocidos con razn por los hijos de la Iglesia catlica como hermanos en el Seor"

Art 819 (muy importante) Adems, "muchos elementos de santificacin y de verdad" existen fuera de los lmites visibles de la Iglesia catlica: "la palabra de Dios escrita, la vida de gracia, la fe, la esperanza y la caridad y otros dones interiores del Espritu Santo y los elementos visibles". El Espritu de Cristo se sirve de estas Iglesias y comunidades eclesiales como medios de salvacin cuya fuerza viene de la plenitud de la gracia y de verdad que Cristo ha confiado a la Iglesia catlica. Todos estos bienes provienen de Cristo y conducen a l y de por s impelen a "la unidad catlica".

Art 838 "La iglesia se siente unida por muchas razones con todos los que se honran con el nombre de cristianos a causa del bautismo, aunque no profesan la fe en su integridad o no conserven la unidad de la comunin bajo el sucesor de Pedro". "Los que creen en Cristo y han recibido ritualmente el bautismo estn en cierta comunin, aunque no perfecta, con la Iglesia catlica". Con las Iglesias ortodoxas, esta comunin es tan profunda "que le falta muy poco para que alcancen la plenitud que hara posible una celebracin comn de la Eucarista del Seor".

---------Cmo se lleg a esta estado de la cuestin donde evidentemente, aun mantenindose el concepto de que fuera de la Iglesia no hay salvacin, todo est mucho ms matizado? Pues eso es lo que toca ver ahora No son pocos los catlicos a los que quizs les cueste entender el porqu la doctrina actual de la Iglesia sobre este asunto es bastante ms suave de lo que ha sido desde la era patrstica. Conviene recordar algo: el dogma catlico ha estado en constante evolucin desde el primer siglo. Dicho dogma no cambia pero s crece. Me explico. Sabemos que la doctrina de la trinidad est ms o menos implcita en la Escritura, pero no fue hasta Nicea cuando el dogma, como tal, se defini. Sabemos que Mara es Madre de Dios porque la Escritura dice que es Madre del Seor Jesucristo, pero no fue hasta el concilio de feso cuando

el ttulo de "teotokos" fue dogma de fe. Qu pasa, entonces, con el dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"? Acaso no ha cambiado radicalmente una vez que se ha aceptado que los nacidos en iglesias protestantes pueden salvarse? NO. Nuestra Iglesia ensea que slo a travs de ella, que es el verdadero Cuerpo de Cristo, los hombres pueden salvarse. La diferencia es que ahora entendemos que aquellos que de alguna manera confiesan a Cristo y comparten los sacramentos salvficos (p.e bautismo), estn en comunin, aunque sea imperfecta, con la Iglesia catlico-romana y por eso pueden ser salvos. Ahora toca ver cmo algunos telogos catlicos entendieron la responsabilidad de aquellos que no queran ser catlicos por el mal testimonio de la Iglesia.

Francisco de Vitoria, dominico, vivi en la primera mitad del siglo XVI y fue maestro de teologa en la Universidad de Salamanca en un tiempo vital para la expansin de la fe cristiana: la colonizacin espaola de Latinoamrica. Fijaos bien en lo que deca Vitoria acerca de los indgenas (brbaros) y la forma de "evangelizarlos": Relecciones sobre los Indios y el Derecho de guerra, 78: "No me consta el que la fe cristiana haya sido hasta el presente propuesta y anunciada a los brbaros en la forma antedicha, de modo que estn obligados a creerla bajo pena de pecado. Digo esto porque, como se infiere en la segunda parte de la proposicin, no estn obligados a creer si la fe no se les propone con motivos probables de persuasin. Pues buen, yo no he odo hablar de milagros ni de otras seales, ni tampoco de religiosos ejemplos de vida: antes, por el contrario, tengo noticias de muchos escndalos, de hechos inhumanos y de actos de impiedad perpretados en esas regiones. No se ve, en consecuencia, qe les haya sido predicada la religin de Cristo lo bastante piadosa y convenientemente para que estn obligados a asentir. Pues si bien es cierto que muchos religiosos y eclesisticos, con su vida y ejemplos y diligente predicacin hubieran consagrado a esta tarea el trabajo e industria necesarios, no pudieron hacerlo estorbados por otros cuyos intereses son muy ajenos a esto."

Ah lo tenis. Francisco de Vitoria no consideraba culpables a los que no haban credo en Cristo por culpa del mal ejemplo de los cristianos. No hace falta que os diga que podemos aplicar eso exactamente igual a aquellos cristianos no catlicos que no pasan a nuestra Iglesia por culpa del mal ejemplo de otros "catlicos". Si Vitoria no consideraba culpables a los nativos no cristianos, cmo considerar nosotros culpables a los CRISTIANOS que no ven una sana predicacin de la verdad catlica acompaada de una vida de santidad? cmo culpar a aquellos que han salido de nuestra Iglesia por culpa del testimonio nefasto de determinados eclesisticos que eran indignos de su ministerio? Si queremos que muchos de ellos vuelvan a casa, hemos de comportarnos como fieles siervos de Cristo, como ejemplos de santidad. Yo puedo decir con mucho orgullo que una de las cosas que ms me ayudaron a volver a la Iglesia catlica fue el ejemplo que me dio el padre Nelson Medina y la increble ayuda que recib de los catlicos cuando mi madre muri, muy superior a la recibida nunca por hermanos evanglicos.

Pero no nos quedamos slo con Francisco de Vitoria. Veamos qu dijo Juan de Lugo, jesuita que desarroll una labor docente en el Colegio Romano desde el 1621 hasta el 1643 y que acab siendo cardenal: De virtute fidei divinae 12, n50-51 "Aquellos que no creen con la fe catlica pueden dividirse en diversas categoras. Hay algunos que, aunque no creen todos los dogmas de la religin catlica, reconocen al nico Dios verdadero; estos son los turcos y todos los musulmanes, as como los judos. Otros reconocen el Dios trino y a Cristo, como hacen la mayora de los herejes (protestantes)... Ahora bien, si esas gentes estn excusadas del pecado de infedilidad por ignorancia invencible, pueden salvarse. En cuanto a aquellos que estn en ignorancia invencible sobre algunos artculos de fe pero creen en otros, no son formalmente herejes, sino que tienen fe sobrenatural por la que creen artculos verdaderos, y sobre esta base pueden realizar actos de

contriccin perfecta, por los que pueden ser justificados y salvados. Lo mismo hay que decir de los judos, si hay algunos que estn invenciblemente equivocados sobre la religin cristiana; porque an as pueden tener ua fe sobrenatural verdadera en Dios, y en otros artculos basados en la Escritura que ellos aceptan, y as, con esta fe pueden tener contricin, por la cual pueden ser justificados y salvados, con tal de que la fe explcita en Cristo no se requiera con necesidad de medios, como ser explicado despus. Por ltimo, si algunos turcos o musulmanes estuvieran en un error invencible sobre Cristo y su divinidad, no hay razn por la que no puedieran tener una fe sobrenatural verdadera sobre Dios como el que recompensa sobrenaturalmente, dado que su fe en Dios no est basada en argumentos deducidos de la creacin natural, sino que tienen su fe de la tradicin, y esta tradicin deriva de la Iglesia de los fieles, y ha sido transmitidia aunque est mezclada con los errores de su secta. Dado que tienen relativamente suficientes motivos para la fe en las doctrinas verdaderas, no se ve por qu no podran tener una fe sobrenatural en ellas, dado que en otros aspectos no son culpables de pecar contra la fe. En consecuencia, con la fe que tienen, pueden llegar a un acto de perfecta contriccin".

Como veis, De Lugo se acerc a la postura actual de la Iglesia catlica ms que ninguno de sus contemporneos y antecesores, pero ya vemos cmo Dios iba "afinando" el dogma. Ahora bien, veamos qu cosa tan "curiosa" dijo el propio De Lugo: De virtute fidei divinae, disp 20, n.149 "Alguien que es bautizado siendo nio por herejes, y es criado por ellos en una falsa doctrina, cuando alcanza la edad adulta, podra no ser culpable durante un tiempo de pecado contra la fe catlica, dado que no le ha sido presentada en una forma suficiente como para obligarle a aceptarla. Sin embargo, si la fe catlica le fuera propuesta posteriormente de una manera suficiente como para obligarle a su aceptacin, y a abandonar los errores contrarios a ella, y l todava persistiera en su error, entonces sera hereje" En mi opinin, De Lugo dio en el centro de la diana. Y creo que es nuestra responsabilidad como catlicos el presentar la fe catlica de "una forma suficiente" como para que nadie pueda escaparse a la pregunta "aceptas la fe de la Iglesia?". Que luego cada cual responda como le parezca, pero quedemos nosotros limpios ante Dios.

Durante la segunda mitad del siglo XVII el jansenismo (una especie de calvinismo a lo catlico) gan mucha simpata entre los catlicos, especialmente en Francia y Blgica. Finalmente, el papa Alejandro VIII, en 1690, autoriz la publicacin de un decreto del Santo Oficio, en el cual se condenaban treinta y una proposiciones jansenitas, entre ellas la siguiente: "5. Paganos, judos, herejes y otros de esa clase no reciben absolutamente ninguna influencia de Jesucristo; de donde se deduce que sus voluntades son dbiles e indefensas, totalmente faltas de gracia suficiente". (proposicin condenada) Es decir, el Papa Alejandro conden la idea de que es imposible que los no catlicos reciban influencia de Cristo y su gracia. Y ya nos acercamos a la era moderna ----------Pasamos ya al siglo XIX, concretamente al pontificado de Po IX (1846- 1878). Como quiera que algunos estaban empezando a sugerir la idea de que cualquier religin era vlida para salvarse, el papa vino a poner las cosas en su sito en el documento Singulari quadam, en el que podemos leer lo siguiente: Singulari quadam, Acta Pii IX, I/I, pg 626 "No sin pesar, hemos sabido que otro error, no menos nocivo, ha tomado posesin de ciertas partes del mundo catlico, y ha entrado en las mentes de muchos catlicos, que creen que bien pueden esperar la

salvacin eterna de todos aquellos que de ninguna manera han vivido en la verdadera Iglesia de Cristo. Por esta razn estn acostumbrados a preguntar frecuentemente cual va a ser el destino y la condicin de aquellos que nunca se han entregado a la fe catlica, y guiados por las ms absurdas razones, esperan una respuesta que favorezca a su depravada opinin. Lejos de nosotros intentar establecer lmites a la misericordia divina, que es infinita. Lejos de nosotros quere escrutar los consejos y juicios escondidos de Dios, que son un `inmenso abismo' que el pensamiento humano nunca puede penetrar. De acuerdo con Nuestro deber apostlico deseamos alentar vuestra solicitud y vigilancia episcopal para echar de las mentes de los hombres, hasta el punto en que seis capaces de usar todas vuestras energas, esa impa y nociva idea: que el camino de la salvacin eterna puede encontrarse en cualquier religin. Con toda la habilidad y el saber a vuestra disposicin, deberais probar a la gente encomendada a vuestro cuidado, que los dogmas de la fe catlica no se oponen de ninguna manera a la misericordia y la justicia divinas. Ciertamente debemos mantener que es parte de la fe que nadie puede salvarse fuera de la Iglesia apostlica Romana, que es el nico arca de salvacin y que quien no entra en ella va a perecer en el diluvio. Pero, sin embargo, debemos de la misma manera defender como cierto que aquellos que se afanan en la ignorancia de la fe verdadera, si esa ignorancia es invencible, nunca sern acusados por esto ante los ojos del Seor. Quin hay que se arrogara el poder de sealar la extensin de tal ignorancia segn la naturaleza y variedad de pueblos, regiones, talentos y tantas otras cosas?" La cosa est clara. La Iglesia es necesaria para la salvacin pero el que busca la verdad y tiene una ignorancia invencible respecto a la Iglesia, quien es el Cuerpo de Cristo, no ser nunca acusado por eso ante Dios Ms adelante, en otro escrito, aclara an ms el asunto: Quanto conficiamur moeror, Acta Pii IX, I/3, pg 613: "Es conocido por Nos y por vosotros que aquellos que se afanan en ignorancia invencible sobre nuestra muy santa religin y que, observando asiduamente la ley natural y sus preceptos que Dios ha inscrito en los corazones de todos, y estando dispuestos a obedecer a Dios, vivir una vida honesta y honrada pueden, mediante la accin de la luz divina y de la gracia, alcanzar la vida eterna, dado que Dios, que ve claramente, escruta y conoce la mente, las intenciones, los pensamientos y los hbitos de todos, en razn de su suprema bondad y misericordia, nunca permite que nadie que no es culpable de pecado deliberado, sea castigado en los sufirmientos eternos. Pero es tambin un dogma catlico perfectamente conocido que nadie puede salvarse fuera de la Iglesia Catlica, y que aquellos que son contumaces en contra de la autoridad y las definiciones de la misma Iglesia, y que estn pertinazmente separados de la unidad de esa Iglesia y del sucesor de Pedro, el Romano Pontfice, a quien ha sido confiada la custodia de la via por el Salvador, no pueden obtener la salvacin eterna". En otras palabras, Po IX vena a decir que "no hay salvacin para aquellos que estn CULPABLEMENTE fuera de la Iglesia". Esto fue ratificado por el Concilio Vaticano I, presidido por el propio Po IX

Poco ms queda que aadir. Hemos dado un paseo hermoso por la evolucin del dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Para finalizar veremos lo que se afirma en la Dominus Iesus, que es el ltimo decreto del Magisterio de la Iglesia acerca de esta doctrina: 4. El perenne anuncio misionero de la Iglesia es puesto hoy en peligro por teoras de tipo relativistas, que tratan de justificar el pluralismo religioso, no slo de facto sino tambin de iure (o de principio). En

consecuencia, se retienen superadas, por ejemplo, verdades tales como el carcter definitivo y completo de la revelacin de Jesucristo, la naturaleza de la fe cristiana con respecto a la creencia en las otra religiones, el carcter inspirado de los libros de la Sagrada Escritura, la unidad personal entre el Verbo eterno y Jess de Nazaret, la unidad entre la economa del Verbo encarnado y del Espritu Santo, la unicidad y la universalidad salvfica del misterio de Jesucristo, la mediacin salvfica universal de la Iglesia, la inseparabilidad aun en la distincin entre el Reino de Dios, el Reino de Cristo y la Iglesia, la subsistencia en la Iglesia catlica de la nica Iglesia de Cristo. Las races de estas afirmaciones hay que buscarlas en algunos presupuestos, ya sean de naturaleza filosfica o teolgica, que obstaculizan la inteligencia y la acogida de la verdad revelada. Se pueden sealar algunos: la conviccin de la inaferrablilidad y la inefabilidad de la verdad divina, ni siquiera por parte de la revelacin cristiana; la actitud relativista con relacin a la verdad, en virtud de lo cual aquello que es verdad para algunos no lo es para otros; la contraposicin radical entre la mentalidad lgica atribuida a Occidente y la mentalidad simblica atribuida a Oriente; el subjetivismo de quien, considerando la razn como nica fuente de conocimiento, se hace incapaz de levantar la mirada hacia lo alto para atreverse a alcanzar la verdad del ser ;8 la dificultad de comprender y acoger en la historia la presencia de eventos definitivos y escatolgicos; el vaciamiento metafsico del evento de la encarnacin histrica del Logos eterno, reducido a un mero aparecer de Dios en la historia; el eclecticismo de quien, en la bsqueda teolgica, asume ideas derivadas de diferentes contextos filosficos y religiosos, sin preocuparse de su coherencia y conexin sistemtica, ni de su compatibilidad con la verdad cristiana; la tendencia, en fin, a leer e interpretar la Sagrada Escritura fuera de la Tradicin y del Magisterio de la Iglesia. Sobre la base de tales presupuestos, que se presentan con matices diversos, unas veces como afirmaciones y otras como hiptesis, se elaboran algunas propuestas teolgicas en las cuales la revelacin cristiana y el misterio de Jesucristo y de la Iglesia pierden su carcter de verdad absoluta y de universalidad salvfica, o al menos se arroja sobre ellos la sombra de la duda y de la inseguridad. ... Por eso, en conexin con la unicidad y la universalidad de la mediacin salvfica de Jesucristo, debe ser firmemente creda como verdad de fe catlica la unicidad de la Iglesia por l fundada. As como hay un solo Cristo, uno solo es su cuerpo, una sola es su Esposa: una sola Iglesia catlica y apostlica . Adems, las promesas del Seor de no abandonar jams a su Iglesia (cf. Mt 16,18; 28,20) y de guiarla con su Espritu (cf. Jn 16,13) implican que, segn la fe catlica, la unicidad y la unidad, como todo lo que pertenece a la integridad de la Iglesia, nunca faltaran. Los fieles estn obligados a profesar que existe una continuidad histrica radicada en la sucesin apostlica entre la Iglesia fundada por Cristo y la Iglesia catlica: Esta es la nica Iglesia de Cristo [...] que nuestro Salvador confi despus de su resurreccin a Pedro para que la apacentara (Jn 24,17), confindole a l y a los dems Apstoles su difusin y gobierno (cf. Mt 28,18ss.), y la erigi para siempre como columna y fundamento de la verdad (1 Tm 3,15). Esta Iglesia, constituida y ordenada en este mundo como una sociedad, subsiste [subsistit in] en la Iglesia catlica, gobernada por el sucesor de Pedro y por los Obispos en comunin con l .54 Con la expresin subsitit in , el Concilio Vaticano II quiere armonizar dos afirmaciones doctrinales: por un lado que la Iglesia de Cristo, no obstante las divisiones entre los cristianos, sigue existiendo plenamente slo en la Iglesia catlica, y por otro lado que fuera de su estructura visible pueden encontrarse muchos elementos de santificacin y de verdad , ya sea en las Iglesias que en las Comunidades eclesiales separadas de la Iglesia catlica. Sin embargo, respecto a estas ltimas, es necesario afirmar que su eficacia deriva de la misma plenitud de gracia y verdad que fue confiada a la Iglesia catlica .

17. Existe, por lo tanto, una nica Iglesia de Cristo, que subsiste en la Iglesia catlica, gobernada por el Sucesor de Pedro y por los Obispos en comunin con l. Las Iglesias que no estn en perfecta comunin con la Iglesia catlica pero se mantienen unidas a ella por medio de vnculos estrechsimos como la sucesin apostlica y la Eucarista vlidamente consagrada, son verdaderas iglesias particulares. Por eso, tambin en estas Iglesias est presente y operante la Iglesia de Cristo, si bien falte la plena comunin con la Iglesia catlica al rehusar la doctrina catlica del Primado, que por voluntad de Dios posee y ejercita objetivamente sobre toda la Iglesia el Obispo de Roma. Por el contrario, las Comunidades eclesiales que no han conservado el Episcopado vlido y la genuina e ntegra sustancia del misterio eucarstico, no son Iglesia en sentido propio; sin embargo, los bautizados en estas Comunidades, por el Bautismo han sido incorporados a Cristo y, por lo tanto, estn en una cierta comunin, si bien imperfecta, con la Iglesia. En efecto, el Bautismo en s tiende al completo desarrollo de la vida en Cristo mediante la ntegra profesin de fe, la Eucarista y la plena comunin en la Iglesia. ..... Ante todo, debe ser firmemente credo que la Iglesia peregrinante es necesaria para la salvacin, pues Cristo es el nico Mediador y el camino de salvacin, presente a nosotros en su Cuerpo, que es la Iglesia, y l, inculcando con palabras concretas la necesidad del bautismo (cf. Mt 16,16; Jn 3,5), confirm a un tiempo la necesidad de la Iglesia, en la que los hombres entran por el bautismo como por una puerta . Esta doctrina no se contrapone a la voluntad salvfica universal de Dios (cf. 1 Tm 2,4); por lo tanto, es necesario, pues, mantener unidas estas dos verdades, o sea, la posibilidad real de la salvacin en Cristo para todos los hombres y la necesidad de la Iglesia en orden a esta misma salvacin

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=964

Is There Salvation Outside the Church? A recent study by Gustave Thils, Pour une thologie de structure plantaire, has pointed out some new possibilities for the solution of the vexing and long-standing problem, the salvation of those who are or seem to be outside the Church.1 The question is difficult, because salvation requires not only a supernatural faith in God who requites justly, and adherence to the moral code, so far as the person knows it, but even membership in the Church. Not a few Fathers of the Church,and even Popes and Councils, have insisted on this requirement of membership. From merely popular level mission magazines to more scholarly works, one so often finds mere despair about this requirement of membership. For example, a seminar on Christology at the 1984 convention of the Catholic Theological Society of America shows not a few participants not only thought the Church could be dispensed with, but even Christ Himself. Doubt was even raised over the "non-contradictory notion of truth" with a tendency to think that "truth is always perspectival."2 At the other end of the spectrum, one finds the pessimistic notion of St. Augustine that most persons are

lost without really a chance and though Augustine did not seem to share this second facet the fundamentalistic understanding of the membership requirement, leading to heroic missionary zeal on the part of not a few Saints, anxious to rescue pagans from otherwise certain eternal ruin. Yet, the Fathers of the first centuries, on closer study, reveal the start of a way out of this impasse. They did not, it seems, reach the complete solution, but they pointed in the right direction. To understand their thought we need to notice that so many of them were remarkably faithful to an essential facet of theological method. They knew that in divine revelation it is not strange if one meets two conclusions which, even on rechecking, turn out to be both true, so that we must hold on in the dark, as it were, until somehow the day may dawn that will show the way to reconciliation. A striking example of this appears in the way the Fathers wrestled with two most dificult Scriptural texts:3 Lk 2:52, which asserts that Jesus grew even in wisdom as well as in age, and Mk 13:32, in which Jesus Himself is quoted as saying He did not know the day of the end. The result was that in a very large number of major Fathers, we find two groups of statements on the question of the human knowledge of Jesus. One group seems to admit ignorance in Him, so He could literally grow in wisdom, and have a lack of knowledge of the day of the end. The other group of texts firmly asserts there was no ignorance in Him on either of these points. With remarkable fidelity, the Fathers went on for a long time in making both kinds of assertions. On the one hand, they did not wish to flatly contradict what Scripture seemed to say; on the other hand, they knew that there could not be ignorance in His human intellect. This situation went on until finally a way was found to reconcile the seeming contradiction. St. Athanasius first discovered that we could distinguish between actual growth in knowledge, and growth in the manifestation of what was always there showing it "before God and men." Much more time had to pass before Eulogius and St. Gregory the Great found the solution to the knowledge of the last day, in saying that He knew it in His humanity but not from His humanity. A diligent search in the Fathers shows a similar situation in regard to "no salvation outside the Church." We find again two sets of assertions, very often by the same writers. One group of statements speaks very strongly, and almost stringently, about the need of membership; the other group softens this position by taking a remarkably broad view of what membership consists in. As we said, in the problems of the human knowledge of Jesus, the Fathers eventually did find out how to reconcile the two kinds of assertions. On our present question of membership in the Church, they seem to have found only part of the answer. But, with their help, we will, at the end of this appendix, propose a new Scripturally-based solution. Before going ahead we need to notice one more principle of interpretation. It is this: the only things guaranteed in statements of the Magisterium, and protected in lesser ways in the works of the Fathers, are the things explicitly set down on paper. We may indeed know historically that certain thoughts, more extensive, were in the minds of the writers. Yet Divine Providence has committed itself to protect only the explicitly written texts, not what is merely in the mind and unexpressed. We might say that God practices a sort of brinkmanship. He has made two commitments that go in opposite directions. First, He has made humans free; second, He has guaranteed this protection of teaching. Therefore He often, as it were, draws a very tight line, protecting only what is explicit on paper, not what is implicit, or only in the minds of the writers. For example, some statements made near the time of St. Augustine and even later were written by those who may have believed at least part of his

massa damnata theory. The fact that we know they had these things in mind does not commit the Church to that theory. Again, the writers of some teachings on the Eucharist had in mind an Aristotelian framework of substance and accident. But these words can be understood in a non-technical, everyday sense. So the Church did not guarantee Aristotelianism. Further, Pius IX and Gregory XVI (and perhaps Leo XIII also) may well have had more extensive ideas in mind on religious liberty/indifferentism than what they set down in writing. But the Church is committed only to what they actually wrote. We need to keep this principle firmly in mind in reading conciliar statements on our question. For the sake of clarity, we will go through each of the two sets of statements separately, beginning with the seemingly rigid texts. Restrictive Texts of the Fathers Perhaps the earliest of these comes from the Shepherd of Hermas: These apostles and the teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, when they fell asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to those who had fallen asleep earlier, and they gave them the seal of the preaching. They therefore went down into the water with them, and came up again.4 Hermas clearly takes the requirement of physical Baptism so rigidly that it had to be given even after death, or there could be no salvation. Yet, we shall meet Hermas again in our second series, with a very broad text. About the same time as Hermas, we meet a statement from St. Justin the Martyr, from the middle of the second century, "Then they [converts] are led by us where there is water, and are regenerated. . . . For Christ said: Unless you are born again, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven."5 In context, of course, Justin is speaking of converts. Yet the insistence on Baptism is strong. On the other hand, as we shall see, Justin has some of the most important texts of a broader type. St. Irenaeus who also has many broad passages, has one which might be considered restrictive: "God places in the Church apostles, prophets, doctors . . . those who are not partakers of these, who do not run to the Church, deprive themselves of life through evil opinions and wicked working."6 Yet he seems to have in mind those who culpably reject the Church. Clement of Alexandria, who has many texts in our second series, quotes verbatim the text we saw from Hermas,7 and seems to agree, in Stromata 2. 9. Clement also wrote: "He who does not enter through the door . . . is a thief and a robber. Therefore it is necessary for them to learn the truth through Christ and to be saved, even if they happen on philosophy."8 Here however, we might wonder if Clement means that only those are lost who by their own fault reject the faith. Clement's great pupil, Origen, also gives us both kinds of statements. Strongest is that from his Homily on Jesu Nave: If anyone of that people wishes to be saved, let him come to this house, so that he can attain salvation, to this house in which the blood of Christ is a sign of redemption. . . . Therefore let no one persuade himself, let no one deceive himself: outside this house, that is, outside the Church, no one is saved: for if anyone goes outside, he becomes guilty of his own death.9 Origen is allegorizing the house of Rahab in Jericho. But it seems that those who went outside did so by

their own fault. Most stringent of all is St. Cyprian: "Whoever separates himself from the Church . . . is separated from the promises of the Church. . . . He cannot have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his mother. If anyone was able to escape outside the ark of Noah, he too who is outside the Church escapes." Even more sternly: The power of baptism cannot be greater or more powerful, can it, than confession, than suffering, such that someone who confesses Christ before men, is baptized with his own blood. And yet, neither does this baptism profit a heretic, even though after confessing Christ, he is killed outside the Church.10 However, the testimony of St. Cyprian is quite marred because he himself broke with the unity of the Church in contradicting Pope St. Stephen on the validity of baptism given by heretics, the very point underlying these statements. Really, if God had taken Cyprian at his word, Cyprian should have been lost, even though a martyr. Lactantius has a similar, though less sweeping text: "Whoever does not enter there [the Church], or whoever goes out from there, is foreign to the hope of life and salvation."11 It is just possible that this could be taken to refer to those who are culpably outside. In view of his pessimistic belief in his massa damnata theory, we might expect St. Augustine to give us many stringent statements. Actually, he does the opposite, as we shall see presently. His restrictive texts are fewer and less clear. In De natura et gratia he wrote: "If Christ did not die for no purpose, therefore all human nature can in no way be justified and redeemed from the most just anger of God . . . except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ. "12 Yet even this statement is softened by his words a few lines earlier: "God is not unjust, so as to deprive the just of the reward of justice, if the sacrament of the divinity and humanity of Christ was not announced to them."13 He thought only a few places by his day had not heard the preaching not dreaming of a whole added hemisphere, and of so many other places in his own hemisphere. Again, in his Contra Julianum, Augustine comments on Romans 2:14-16, which seems to speak of the salvation of pagans without the law. He takes the gentiles mentioned to be converted gentiles, and adds: "Nor can you prove by them that which you want, that even infidels can have true virtues."14 Similarly, in commenting in Epistle 164. 4. 10 on the mysterious words of 1 Peter 3: 18-20, he thinks that Christ preached to perhaps all the dead, and so gave them a chance for salvation. St. Cyril of Alexandria, says J. N. D. Kelly, "was voicing universally held assumptions when he wrote [in Ps 30:22] that 'mercy is not obtainable outside the holy city'."15 St. Fulgentius of Ruspe clearly follows in the train of St. Cyprian: Not only all pagans, but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics, who finish their lives outside the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire. . . . No one, howsoever much he may have given alms, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.16 Fulgentius also is at least close to the error of Cyprian on invalidity of baptism given by heretics: "Baptism can exist . . . even among heretics . . . but it cannot be beneficial [prodesse] outside the Catholic Church."17 He likewise believes, with Augustine, in the damnation of unbaptized infants.18

Restrictive Magisterium Texts There are several Magisterium texts that seem quite stringent. The Profession of Faith prescribed by Pope Innocent III in 1208 A.D. for the Waldensians says: " We believe in our heart and confess in our mouth that there is one Church, not of heretics, but the holy Roman Catholic apostolic Church, outside of which we believe no one is saved."19 Similarly, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 A.D. defined, against the Albigensians and Cathari: "There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved."20 Pope Boniface VIII in his famous Unam sanctam of Nov. 18, 1302 spoke strongly: "Outside of which [the Church] there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. . . . But we declare, state and define that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is altogether necessary for salvation."21 The texts of Innocent III and IV Lateran do not go farther than the patristic texts we have seen. But the second sentence from Boniface VIII does raise a further question. However, the difficulty is easily handled; for the critical line is quoted from St. Thomas, Contra Errores Graecorum: "Ostenditur etiam quod subesse Romano Pontifici sit de necessitate salutis"22 ("It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation.") But in the context, shown by the two quotes St. Thomas gives at this point, it means merely that there is no salvation outside the Church. In that sense one must come under the jurisdiction of the Pope.23 An Epistle of Clement VI, of Sept. 29, 1351, makes just a simple statement: "No man . . . outside the faith of the Church and obedience to the Roman Pontiff can finally be saved."24 The sense is as above. Finally, the Decree for the Jacobites from the Council of Florence in 1442 seems specially vehement: It firmly believes, professes and preaches, that none who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can partake of eternal life, but they will go into eternal fire . . . unless before the end of life they will have been joined to it [the Church]; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body has such force that only for those who remain in it are the sacraments of the Church profitable for salvation, and fastings, alms and other works of piety and exercises of the Christian soldiery bring forth eternal rewards [only] for them. "No one, howsoever much almsgiving he has done, even if he sheds his blood for Christ, can be saved, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."25 The internal quote at the end is one we saw above from Fulgentius. Does the Council endorse all the implications of Fulgentius? Hardly. As we saw, Fulgentius also teaches the damnation of unbaptized infants, and seems to contradict the teaching of Pope St. Stephen on baptism given by heretics. But, more importantly, we can see from the vehemence of Patristic attacks on heretics, e.g., St. Cyprian Ad Demetrianum, that the Fathers have in mind those who are in bad faith, who culpably reject the Church. They do not seem to think of those who inculpably fail to find the Church.26 So from this point on, it becomes largely a question not of doctrine but of objective fact: how many are culpable? Further, this statement was made in 1442, before the 1492 discovery that there was a whole other world. The writers thought that the Gospel had actually reached every creature it had not and supposed, as we said, bad faith on the part of those who rejected it. So we need to think again of the remarks on brinkmanship in the introduction to this appendix. Broad Texts of the Magisterium

That our interpretation of the Councils is not forced is guaranteed for us by the fact that the same Magisterium, equally guided by the same Holy Spirit, who does not contradict Himself, also made statements which require this interpretation. As we shall see, these Magisterium texts, by their repetition even on the Ordinary Magisterium level, can be considered infallible, in line with the general teaching of theologians about such repetitions. Thus Pius IX, in Quanto conficiamur moerore of August 10, 1863, taught: God . . . in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault. But it is also a Catholic dogma, that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved, and that those who are contumacious against the authority of the same Church [and] definitions and who are obstinately [pertinaciter] separated from the unity of this Church and from the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, to whom the custody of the vineyard was entrusted by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation.27 This is a most significant text. For in it Pius IX stressed both the broad view, and the need of membership. Further, Pius IX is noted for his insistent condemnation of indifferentism, as we see in this passage just quoted, and in his strong-sounding Quanta cura. So Pius IX does not deny the obligation to formally enter the Church if one knows the truth that would be indifferentism but he still could give a very broad statement which means that if one keeps the moral law as he knows it, somehow the other requirements will be met though the Pope does not explain how. (At the end of this appendix we will try to explain how.) Yet he does help us by the words "contumacious . . . obstinate" which clearly show he has in mind those who culpably reject the Church. On August 9, 1949, the Holy Office, by order of Pope Pius XII, and basing itself on the teaching of Pius XII in his Mystical Body Encyclical (we shall cite the text presently), condemned the error of Leonard Feeney who held that those who failed to enter the Church formally, even with no fault of their own, could not reach salvation. The decree says: It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit . . . but when a man labors under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God. Pius XII had said that a man can be "ordered to the Church by a certain desire and wish of which he is not aware [inscio quodam desiderio ac voto]," that is, the one contained in the good dispositions mentioned by the Holy Office.28 Vatican II taught the same in Lumen gentium: For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation.29 We note that Vatican II said they need to act under the impulse of actual grace. This grace is always provided for those who do what they can. Further, we notice that Vatican II says they can attain eternal salvation it does not say they would reach just a sort of limbo of adults, which some who wish to follow Feeney propose, though the Church knows nothing of such an intermediate state for adults.

Broad Texts of the Fathers Many of the broad texts of the Fathers were given in response to a charge by the pagans: If the Church and Christ are necessary, why did He come so late, and neglect countless millions born before His time? The first attested instance of this claim comes from the pagan Celsus, in his True Discourse, probably to be dated 178 A.D. Origen quotes Celsus: "Did God then after so great an age think of making the life of man just, but before He did not care?"30 We cannot help thinking of St. Paul himself, who in Rom 3:29-30 asks: "Is He the God of the Jews alone? Is He not also [the God] of the gentiles? Yes, also of the gentiles. For it is one [and the same] God who makes righteous the circumcision [Jews] on the basis of faith, and uncircumcision [non-Jews] through faith." In other words: If God had not provided for those who did not come to know His old revelation, He would seem not to act as their God. The same, of course, applies to the period after Christ, for St. Paul insists with repeated vehemence in Rom 5:15-19 that the redemption is much more abundant than the fall. If God had made provision before Christ, and then left men worse off after Christ, the redemption would be, for such men, not superabundant, but a harsh disaster. Long before Celsus and before any known literary pagan attacks on Christ, Pope St. Clement had written to Corinth c. 94. A.D. Let us go through all generations, and learn that in generation and generation the Master has given a place of repentance to those willing to turn to Him. Noah preached repentance, and those who heard him were saved. Jonah preached repentance to the Ninivites; those who repented for their sins appeased God in praying, and received salvation, even though they were aliens [allotrioi] of God.31 That is, they did not formally belong to His People of God. The most suggestive texts come from St. Justin the Martyr, who also wrote before Celsus, but anticipated the objection of Celsus. In his First Apology he says he will answer in advance the claim that those who lived before Christ were not answerable: "Christ is the Logos [Divine Word] of whom the whole race of men partake. Those who lived according to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus."32 Light on what Justin means by this comes in his Second Apology 10:8: "Christ . . . was and is the Logos who is in everyone, and foretold through the prophets the things that were to come, and taught these things in person after becoming like to us in feeling." Similarly in Second Apology 13.3, after speaking of Plato, the Stoics and others: "For each of them, through part of the Divine Logos, seeing what was cognate to it [syngenes] to it, spoke well."33 Danielou gives a helpful interpetation. He holds that Justin borrows Stoic termonology, so as to say that in each man there is a "seed of the Logos" [sperma tou logou], resulting from the action of the Logos which gives the seed [spermatikos logos]. For the Stoics, the Logos is the immanent principle of all reason, of which the rational faculty in each man is a manifestation: "It is the action of this Logos which gives to each man the capacity to form certain moral and religious conceptions. . . . That which Socrates and Heraclitus knew is in fact the Word."34 They knew it partially and obscurely. But yet, Justin does not mean a difference in the content of the truth they saw and the truth that came through revelation. Danielou adds: "The difference is solely one of fulness, certainty, clarity." We can certainly agree with Danielou that Justin the philosopher utilized the language and even to some extent the framework of ideas borrowed from Stoicism. But we believe, as we shall say later on, that there is still greater depth to Justin's thought. He had seen many philosophies, and now wants to use them in the service of Christ,35 but without being a merely natural philosopher. The real basis of Justin's

thought is probably Romans 2:14-16, in which Paul tells us that God, or the Spirit of God, or of Christ, writes the law on hearts, even the hearts of pagans, i.e., makes known to each one what he should do. (Anthropology today agrees: pagans do know the moral law surprisingly well.) Those who follow the law written on hearts by the Spirit, do follow the Logos, and so can be saved, as Rom 2:16 says. Hence Hacker is not right in saying: "Justin is silent on the possibility for pious gentiles to reach final consummation in eternity."36 If Justin says Socrates was Christian, and lived by the Logos, how can such a Christian fail to reach the goal? Again, Rom 2:16 speaks of this final consummation at the judgment. We saw above that Hermas gives us the odd view of baptism after death. Yet in Vision 2.4.1 he shows a much broader view. The angel asks Hermas who he thinks the old woman is from whom he received the little book. Hermas opines it is the Sibyl. The angel corrects him: "You are wrong. . . . It is the Church. I said to him: Why then an old woman? He said: Because she was created first of all; for this reason she is an old woman, and because of her the world was established."37 So the Church has always existed. Creation itself was carried out, it seems, in anticipation of her coming to be. The so-called Second Epistle of Clement regardless of its authorship (it seems to have been written about 150 A.D.) agrees: "The books of the prophets and the apostles [say] that the Church is not [only] now, but from the beginning. She was spiritual, like also our Jesus. She was manifested in the last days to save us."38 St. Irenaeus, as we saw, has one passage which might be considered restrictive. But in many other places he takes a very broad view: "There is one and the same God the Father and His Logos, always assisting the human race, with varied arrangements, to be sure, and doing many things, and saving from the beginning those who are saved, for they are those who love God, and, according to their age [genean] follow His Logos."39 We note Irenaeus speaks of the human race, of the various time periods, of various arrangements, not just of the Hebrews and the arrangement God made with them. Further, although Irenaeus was not fond of speculation, yet he wrote that those who follow the Logos are saved. This of course sounds like Justin's First Apology 46, cited above. Grillmeier observes: "In his view, the incarnation is merely the conclusion in an immense series of manifestations of the Logos, which had their beginning in the creation of the world."40 In the same vein, we also read in Irenaeus: "For the Son, administering all things for the Father, completes [His work] from the beginning to the end. . . . For the Son, assisting to His own creation from the beginning, reveals the Father to all to whom He wills."41 And similarly, as if answering Celsus: Christ came not only for those who believed from the time of Tiberius Caesar, nor did the Father provide only for those who are now, but for absolutely all men from the beginning, who according to their ability, feared and loved God and lived justly . . . and desired to see Christ and to hear His voice.42 Clement of Alexandria has many statements of a broad nature: "From what has been said, I think it is clear that there is one true Church, which is really ancient, into which those who are just according to design are enrolled."43 Similarly: "Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews."44 Danilou makes incisive comments. First he observes that while Justin spoke of a common action of the Logos before Christ, Clement distinguishes two patterns: "Clement presents philosophy as representing for the Greeks a counterpart to the Law." So that some Greeks received only a common knowledge

derived from reason, while others received the action of the Logos proper. So Danilou cites Stromata 7.2: "To the one he gave the commandments, to the others, philosophy . . . with the result that everyone who did not believe was without excuse."45 Hacker, however, says: "To attain final salvation it is indispensable that the souls of the righteous gentiles in Hades should do penance and accept faith in Christ. "46 To be consistent, he should have added a requirement of baptism, thinking of Stromata 2.9, where Clement quotes at length the passage we saw above from Hermas. But it seems that Hacker here has made a methodological slip, in trying to force disparate statements in Clement into a synthesis. As we have been seeing, two kinds of texts are found in many writers, Clement included. Clement, like the others, did not really make a synthesis of the two series; he just stated each separately. Clement, however, does seem to mean final salvation for gentiles, for he also says in Stromata 1.20.99: Philosophy of itself made the Greeks just, though not to total justice [ouk eis ten katholou de dikaiosynen]; it is found to be a helper to this [perfect justice], like the first and second steps for one ascending to the upper part of the house, and like the elementary teacher for the [future] philosopher. We notice two things here: (1) Philosophy once did make the Greeks just; (2) it was not total justice. What this means is made clear by the comparison of the steps for one ascending to the upper part of the house. Philosophy really did make just, but it did not lead the Greeks to the highest levels, that to which Clement's "gnostics" (perfect Christians) attain. Hacker later 47 helps our interpretation by saying that Clement is bringing out the implications of what St. John means in the opening of his Gospel, "when speaking of the light of the Logos that illuminates every man." We think again of Romans 2:15. Escribano-Alberca adds that for Clement, "Eternal life is reached through an obedience according to the Logos."48 Origen, Clement's great pupil, goes farther in the same direction. J. N. D. Kelly observes 49 that at Alexandria interest tended to focus on the invisible Church of the perfect Christian, whom Clement would call the true gnostic, and to identify this spiritual Church with Christ's mystical body. Kelly adds that in Origen: "In this mystical sense, Christ's body comprises the whole of humanity, indeed the whole of creation."50 Origen even becomes so bold as to assert that the heavenly Church existed since and even before creation: "Do not think I speak of the spouse or the Church [only] from the coming of the Savior in the flesh, but from the beginning of the human race, in fact, to seek out the origin of this mystery more deeply with Paul as leader, even before the foundation of the world."51 Origen52 has in mind Ephesians 1:4, in which he interprets the Greek katabole as meaning a fall from a better state. He thinks we were all in a world of spirits before this life. According to diverse merits, some became men, angels, devils, or stars in the sky. Origen feels he needs to suppose a sin on our part even before this life to account for human afflictions.53 It is Origen who gives us the objection of Celsus: "Did God then after so great an age think of making just the life of man, but before He did not care?"54 To which Origen replies: To this we will say that there never was a time when God did not will to make just the life of men. But He always cared, and gave occasions of virtue to make the reasonable one right. For generation by generation this wisdom of God came to souls it found holy and made them friends of God and prophets. Similarly, in his commentary on Romans 2:14-16 Origen said that the law written on hearts was not the law about sabbaths and new moons, but:

that they must not commit murder or adultery, not steal, not speak false testimony, that they honor father and mother, and similar things . . . and it is shown that each one is to be judged not according to a privilege of nature, but by his own thoughts he is accused or excused, by the testimony of his conscience.55 The remark about the "privilege of nature" means that it does not matter whether they be Jews or not. There is no respecting of persons with God. Origen also has a remarkable line on pagan sacrifices: "Since God wants grace to abound, He sees fit to be present. . . . He is present not to the [pagan] sacrifices, but to the one who comes to meet Him, and there He gives His word."56 We have only the Latin text of Origen here; the Greek presumably would have read Logos, a thought reminiscent of his teacher Clement, and, more remotely, of Justin. The objection voiced by Celsus is faced most explicitly in the so-called Acts of Archelaus with Manes, which Quasten57 thinks really did not take place, but were composed by Hegemonius of Chalcedon, of whom we know nothing further. The date is the first half of the 4th century, probably after the Council of Nicea. Archelaus argued with Manes about the fate of those who lived in ancient times. As to these Archelaus asserts: From the creation of the world He has always been with just men. . . . Were they not made just from the fact that they kept the law, 'Each one of them showing the work of the law on their hearts. . . ?' For when someone who does not have the law does by nature the things of the law, this one, not having the law, is a law for himself. . . . For if we judge that a man is made just without the works of the law . . . how much more will they attain justice who fulfilled the law containing those things which are expedient for men? As we shall see later, it is especially significant that Hegemonius ties his belief to Romans 2:15, "They show the work of the law written on their hearts" written, really, even though the pagans did not know it, by the Logos, of whom Justin spoke. The same objection about God's care in former times is answered also by Arnobius: But, they say: If Christ was sent by God for this purpose, to deliver unhappy souls from the destruction of ruin what did former ages deserve, which before His coming were consumed in the condition of mortality? . . . Put aside these cares, and leave the questions you do not understand; for royal mercy was imparted to them, and the divine benefits ran equally through all. They were conserved, they were liberated, and they put aside the sort and condition of mortality.58 The first Church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, takes a similar stand: But even if we [Christians] are certainly new, and this really new name of Christians is just recently known among the nations, yet our life and mode of conduct, in accord with the precepts of religion, has not been recently invented by us; but from the first creation of man, so to speak, it is upheld by natural inborn concepts of the ancient men who loved God, as we will here show. . . . But if someone would describe as Christians those who are testified to as having been righteous [going back] from Abraham to the first man, he would not hit wide of the truth.59 Christian concepts, then, according to Eusebius, are as it were inborn, and so one could even say there were Christians from the beginning. This is possible, we may infer, since these early people, without recognizing the fact, were following the Logos we think again of Justin's First Apology 46. The large, even cosmic role Eusebius assigns to the Logos, as shown by Muoz Palacios60 seems presupposed.

In his oration at the funeral of his father, a convert who became a bishop, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, said: He was ours even before he was of our fold. His way of living made him such. For just as many of ours are not with us, whose life makes them other from our body [the Church], so many of those outside belong to us, who by their way of life anticipate the faith, and need [only ] the name, having the reality [ergon].61 In a similar vein, in his oration in praise of his sister Gorgonia, he said: "Her whole life was a purification for her, and a perfecting. She had indeed the regeneration of the Spirit, and the assurance of this from her previous life. And, to speak boldly, the mystery [baptism] was for her practically only the seal, not the grace." St. John Chrysostom, in commenting on Romans 2:14-16, explains that the words "by nature" mean "according to natural reasoning": For this reason they are wonderful, he says, because they did not need the law, and they show all the works of the law. . . . Do you not see how again he makes present that day and brings it near . . . and showing that they should rather be honored who without the law hastened to carry out the things of the law?. . . . Conscience and reasoning suffice in place of the law. Through these things he showed again that God made man self-sufficient [autarke] in regard to the choice of virtue and fleeing evil. . . . He shows that even in these early times and before the giving of the law, men enjoyed complete providence [pronoia]. For "what is knowable of God" was clear to them, and what was good and what was evil they knew.62 In his Homilies on John, Chrysostom takes up the recurring objection of Celsus: "When, then, the gentiles accuse us saying: What was Christ doing in former times, not taking care. . . ? We will reply: Even before He was in the world, He took thought for His works, and was known to all who were worthy."63 Here Chrysostom does better than in the previous passage, where he seemed to say men knew moral requirements through reason. For now he seems to mean that as Logos He made Himself known interiorly. Really, the knowledge pagans have of the moral code can be called a knowledge of the natural law, but they do not really reach it by explicit reasoning, but by a mysterious inner knowledge, which is the effect of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ. Further, that natural law does coincide with the will of God. In his comment on Romans 2:29 Chrysostom adds: "He means clearly not an idolatrous Greek, but a God-fearing one." He seems to think all idolators are culpable; a factual, not a doctrinal conclusion. He is perhaps influenced by the words of Rom 1:20-22. The thought of St. Ambrose is less sharply focused: "Our price is the blood of Christ. . . . Therefore He brought the means of health to all so that whoever perishes, must ascribe the cause of his death to himself, for he was unwilling to be cured when he had a remedy. . . . For the mercy of Christ is clearly proclaimed on all."64 Ambrose hardly means that in general God has set up as it were a reservoir of salvation: if someone without personal fault should not reach it, he would be loSt. That was the view of some Thomists many centuries later. Instead, Ambrose says that the one lost "must ascribe the cause of his death to himself, for he was unwilling." St. Augustine65 shows remarkable fidelity to the point of method we stressed at the start of this study, in that he has clear examples of texts of both kinds, as we shall see presently. But it is helpful to notice what he does similarly, on a closely related question, that of predestination. His massa damnata theory is well known, in connection with which he writes that most humans are lost: "In it [punishment] there are many

more than in [grace] so that in this way it may be shown what was due to all."66 Further, he insists that which side a person will be on does not at all depend on prevision of merits.67 Yet at other times, he teaches that the negative decision, reprobation, depends first of all on personal demerits, not just on original sin. (He nowhere, however, makes the positive decision, predestination, depend on merits.) Thus in De diversis quaestionibus he says that those who came to the Gospel dinner could not have come without being called, but yet, "those who were unwilling to come should attribute it to no one but themselves"68 therefore, not to God's prior desertion. Again, in his debate with Felix the Manichean, Felix asked why the lost sinners were not cleansed. Augustine replied: "Because they did not will it." Felix, surprised, asks: " 'Because they did not will it' did you say this?" Augustine replied: "I said this: Because they did not will it."69 In the massa damnata context the basic reason would have been desertion by God, followed by their deserting Him. So in De correptione et gratia he speaks of sinners who do not persevere: "They desert [God] and are deserted."70 In massa damnata, he would have said: God deserted them, then they deserted Him. Thus Augustine implies a theory quite different from massa damnata, one in which predestination is without merits, but reprobation depends on demerits.71 In his De civitate Dei, Augustine also shows two different images of that city, which, as J. N. D. Kelly points out, he never reconciled.72 On the one hand, in the final book 22, especially in chapter 30, he speaks of heaven as the final end of the City of God. Yet in 16.2 he identifies the Church and the City of God, though he knows that not all in the Church will be saved (18.28;20, 5, 9). Further, in 18.47 he insists: Nor do I think the Jews would dare to argue that no one pertained to God except the Israelites, from the time that Israel came to be. . . . they cannot deny that there were certain men even in other nations who pertained to the true Israelites, the citizens of the fatherland above, not by earthly but by heavenly association.73 He cites the case of Job, and earlier, in 18.23, the Sibyl of Cumae. In Retractations Augustine explains this, following the tradition begun in First Clement:74 "This very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, nor was it lacking from the beginning of the human race, until Christ Himself came in the flesh, when the true religion, that already existed, began to be called Christian."75 Earlier, in his Epistle 102, Augustine takes up the objection of Celsus, repeated by Porphyry: Wherefore since we call Christ the Word [Logos] of God, through whom all things were made . . . under whose rule [was/is] every creature, spiritual and corporal . . . so those from the beginning of the human race, who believed in Him and understood Him somewhat [utcumque] and lived according to His precepts devoutly and justly, whenever and wherever they were, beyond doubt they were saved through Him.76 And further on in Epistle 102.15: "And yet from the beginning of the human race there were not lacking persons who believed in Him, from Adam up to Moses, both in the very people of Israel . . . and in other nations before He came in the flesh."77 We notice how Augustine, in line with so many earlier writers, ties his answer to the Logos who administered all things even before the incarnation, so that those who followed Him, the Logos, were saved we think again of the words of St. Justin on Socrates and Heraclitus, whom he even called Christians. As Jurgens says,78 the De vocatione omnium gentium is now widely admitted to be by St. Prosper,

secretary to Pope Leo I, and an ardent disciple of St. Augustine. It is debated whether and to what extent Prosper modified Augustine's ideas on predestination. De Letter thinks Prosper did not clearly break: "St. Prosper . . . is struggling to break away from the influence of the Augustinian predestination. . . . [O]wing to his inability to free himself fully from it, his idea of the general grace, universally given to all, fails to solve the problem."79 De Letter adds that if Prosper had said that the sole reason why the special graces were not given to some would be because they refused them, Prosper would have made a great step forward. Jurgens on the other hand holds Prosper did break with Augustine: "For Prosper, election is the result of God's foreknowledge of the elect, and is the only answer to the mysterious question of why God chooses, elects or predestines. . . ."80 Let us see the texts of St. Prosper himself: ". . . according to it [Scripture] . . . we believe and devoutly confess that never was the care of divine providence lacking to the totality of men."81 And also: "To these however [who have not yet heard of Christ] that general measure of help, which is always given from above to all men, is not denied." We confess these texts are not fully clear, for De Letter can claim that Prosper means merely that general grace is offered to all, but that without cause, the added help needed for salvation is denied to some. But Prosper does become clear elsewhere: "For this reason they were not predestined [namely] because they were foreseen as going to be such as a result of voluntary transgression. . . . For they were not deserted by God so as to desert God; but they deserted and were deserted."82 Within Augustine's classic massa damnata theory the first step is God's desertion of a man then man's desertion of God comes second. But Prosper83 inverts that order. Really, as we saw above, Augustine has two theories84 the one, the massa damnata, which is often stated explicity; the other, never stated explicitly, but only implied, in several texts, ranging in date from 388 to 426, and at many points in between. St. Prosper is really breaking with the massa damnata, but is being entirely faithful to the implicit theory of Augustine, who also wrote, in De correptione et gratia 13.42: "Either they lie under the sin which they contracted originally by generation . . . or they receive the grace of God, but are temporary, and do not persevere. They desert and are deserted." Prosper too said, as we saw: "They desert and are deserted." Again, Augustine wrote, in LXXXIII.68.5: "Nor should they who were unwilling to come [to the banquet in the Gospel] attribute it to anyone but themselves." But in massa damnata, the ultimate reason would be God's decision to desert. Similarly, Augustine wrote, in De peccatorum meritis et remissione 2.17.26: "It is from the grace of God which helps the wills of men that what was hidden becomes known, and that which did not please becomes sweet. The reason why they were not helped is likewise in themselves, not in God." Hence it is proper to take the first text we saw of St. Prosper (at note 82) as opening salvation in some way to all, so that, by implication, the requirement of membership in the Church will be provided for. We do not know whether St. Nilus was a former officer of the court of Theodosius who later withdrew to a monastery on Sinai, or whether he was superior of a monastery at Ancyra and a disciple of St. John Chrysostom. However, the following passage from St. Nilus is at least partly in accord with the thought of St. John Chrysostom which we saw above: In every nation, the one who fears God and does justice is acceptable to Him. For it is clear that such a one is acceptable to God and is not to be cast aside, who at his own right time flees to the worship of the blessed knowledge of God. God will not allow him to die in ignorance, but will lead him to the truth, and will enlighten him with the light of knowledge, like Cornelius.85

St. Nilus does, it seems, think salvation in each case is to be accomplished by being brought to the visible Church. St. Cyril of Alexandria has a very significant passage: For if there is one over all, and there is no other besides Him, He would be master of all, because He was Maker of all. For He is also the God of the gentiles, and has fully satisfied by laws implanted in their hearts, which the Maker has engraved in the hearts of all. For when the gentiles, [Paul] says, not having the law, do by nature the things of the law, they show the work of the law written on their hearts. But since He is not only the Maker and God of the Jews, but also of the gentiles . . . He sees fit by His providence to care not only for those who are of the blood of Israel, but also for all those upon the earth.86 St. Cyril bases his thought on Romans 3:29, where Paul argues that God, since He is God of the gentiles too, must have made provision for them. Cyril suggests that it seems that He did this by way of engraving the law on their hearts (Rom 2:15). Theodoret of Cyrus, in commenting on Rom 2:14-16, makes clear that he holds, with St. Paul, that some gentiles, even though not members visibly of the People of God, are saved: For they who, before the Mosaic law, adorned their life with devout reasonings and good actions, testify that the divine law called for action, and they became lawgivers for themselves. . . . . He [St. Paul] shows that the law of nature was written on hearts. . . . According to this image, let us describe the future judgment and the conscience of those accepting the charge and proclaiming the justice of the decision.87 Theodoret also takes up the classic objection of Celsus. In his Remedy for Greek Diseases, he writes: But if you say: Why then did not the Maker of all fulfill this long ago? You are blaming even the physicians, since they keep the stronger medicines for last; having used the milder things first, they bring out the stronger things laSt. The all-wise Healer of our souls did this too. After employing various medicines . . . finally He brought forth this all-powerful and saving medicine.88 While he holds that God did not give such great helps before Christ, Theodoret yet holds God did take care of humans, by way of "different medicines." Pope St. Leo the Great is a bit less clear than some, yet, when we consider his words in the context of the tradition we have seen developing, they seem to mean that there always was a Church: So God did not take care of human affairs by a new plan, or by late mercy, but from the foundation of the world He established one and the same cause of salvation for all. For the grace of God by which the totality of the saints always has been justified was increased when Christ was born, but did not begin [then].89 Pope St. Gregory the Great, a strong admirer of St. Augustine, also speaks of Christ preaching to the dead: "When He descended to the underworld, the Lord delivered from the prison only those who while they lived in the flesh He had kept through His grace in faith and good works."90 But Gregory does not mention a baptism in the underworld, nor does Augustine. Yet his conviction is clear that God somehow made provision for those who did not formally enter the People of God. But Pope Gregory also follows the tradition we saw in Augustine and earlier, of making the Church exist

from the beginning: The passion of the Church began already with Abel, and there is one Church of the elect, of those who precede, and of those who follow. . . . They were, then, outside, but yet not divided from the holy Church, because in mind, in work, in preaching, they already held the sacraments of faith, and saw that loftiness of Holy Church. . . .91 Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumetum, writing about 560 A.D., in his commentary on Romans, does not explicitly mention the Church, yet he makes clear, with Paul, that some who were not visibly members of the first people of God were just, and will be saved at the judgment: "By nature they do the things of the law. . . ." He [Paul] speaks either of those who keep the law of nature, who do not do to others what they do not want to be done to themselves; or, that even the gentiles naturally praise the good and condemn the wicked, which is the work of the law; or, of those who even now, when they do anything good, profess that they have received from God the means of pleasing God. . . . "And their thoughts in turn accusing or even defending, on the day when God will judge the hidden things of men." He speaks of altercations of thought . . . and according to this we are to be judged on the day of the Lord.92 St. John Damascene, often considered the last of the Fathers, gives us a possibly helpful text: The creed teaches us to believe also in one holy Catholic and Apostolic church of God. The Catholic Church cannot be only apostolic, for the all-powerful might of her Head, which is Christ, is able through the Apostles to save the whole world. So there is a Holy Catholic Church of God, the assembly of the Holy Fathers who are from the ages, of the patriarchs, of prophets, apostles, evangelists, martyrs, to which are added all the gentiles who believe the same way [homothymadon]93 We note St. John says that the power of Christ can save the whole world, and that it extends even to "the Holy Fathers who are from the ages" before Christ. He may mean the power of Christ even before the incarnation worked inasmuch as the Logos was present to all.94 Without pretending to give at all a complete survey, yet it may be worthwhile to give two samples from the post-patristic age. Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt (died 853), in his commentary on Romans 2:14-16, says that the words of Paul that the gentiles show the work of the law written on hearts can be understood in two ways. First: They show surely that they have the natural law written on their hearts, and they are the law for themselves: because they do the things that the law teaches, even though it was not given to them. For example, the Saracens who have neither the law of Moses nor of the Gospel, while by nature they keep the law, do not commit murder, or commit adultery, or other things, which the law written within them contains; they are a law to themselves. . . . In the second way: When the gentiles . . . naturally do the things . . . because they have the same law of Moses written on their hearts by the inspiration of Almighty God . . . "their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts in turn accusing or even defending." And when will this be? "On the day when the Lord will judge the hidden things of men" according to my Gospel.95 So, Haymo thinks even some Saracens of his day are being saved! Similarly, Oecumenius, commenting on the same passage of Romans, around 990 A.D., gave the same

explanation: "They do the things of the law" using the reasonings of nature for just actions. These are wonderful, not needing a teacher, being their own lawgivers and fulfillers of the legislation. . . . "Their conscience bearing witness to them," for it is enough in place of the law to have their own conscience testifying for them. . . . At that judgment we do not need external accusers or witnesses . . . but each one's own reasonings and conscience either accuses or defends.96 Summary and Conclusion We found restrictive texts in Hermas, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Cyprian, Lactantius, St. Augustine, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Fulgentius. There are also five Magisterium texts that seem restrictive. We found broad texts much more widely. Only three of the above ten Fathers who have restrictive texts lack broad texts: St. Cyprian, Lactantius, and St. Fulgentius. All others, plus many more, do have them. Broad texts are found in: First Clement, St. Justin, Hermas, Second Clement, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hegemonius, Arnobius, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Prosper, St. Nilus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, St. Leo the Great, St. Gregory the Great, Primasius, and St. John Damascene. We added two samples of later writers with broad texts: Haymo and Oecumenius. We find many of the Fathers specifically answering the charge of Celsus (why did Christ come so late) St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Origen, Hegemonius, Arnobius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine (though not all explicitly mention Celsus). Very many speak of the Church as always existing: Hermas, Second Clement, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, St. Augustine, St. Leo, St. Gregory, St. John Damascene. The idea that theophanies in the Old Testament times were really by the Logos is very common among the Fathers. So it is not strange that we find many of the Fathers speak of the Logos as present to men to save them: St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine. Closely related is the idea that pagans can be saved if they follow the law written on hearts by the Spirit of Christ, or the Logos, as in Romans 2:15:97 Origen, Hegemonius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Primasius. What is the common denominator? Though not all mention Celsus specifically, it seems that underlying all broad texts is the conviction that somehow in the past, God did provide for all men this is something sometimes explicitly tied to Romans 3:29-30 (He is not the God only of the Jews). This is the fact of which all seem convinced. But just how that provision is worked out is less clear, and often the writers do not attempt to explain. Yet we can build on these data to reconcile the two kinds of texts, so as to solve the problem of "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus." St. Justin gives the best starting point. He says that those who followed the Logos, who is in each person, were Christians, even though they were considered atheists, such as Socrates and Heraclitus. As we said above, Justin was using the language of Stoicism part of the usual tactics of apologists, who were eager to show the similarity of Christian thought to that of the best philosophers. But does Justin really mean to give us just Stoicism or to play on the vagueness of the word

Logos (Word/reason)? Of course not. So if we ask in precisely what way the Logos was present to Socrates and others, we could utilize the insights of many other Fathers: The Logos was there to write the law on hearts (cf.Rom 2:15). Modern experimental anthropology concurs; pagans do know the moral law surprisingly well. How do they know it? It seems to become known in some interior way, though not by mere reasoning. That interior way, even though the pagans did not recognize what it was, is God, or the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Christ, or the Logos all mean the same. St. Paul clearly has this thought, for in Rom 2:15 he obviously echoes Jeremiah 31:33 (prophecy of new covenant): "I will write my law on their hearts." So God did and does indeed write His law on the hearts of men. Objectively, this is done by the Spirit of God, the divine Logos, as we said. As Justin says, those who follow the Logos were and are Christians. Now if we add still other words of St. Paul in Romans we can go further. In Rom 8:9: "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ, does not belong to Him." So, those who do have the Spirit of Christ, and follow the Logos as He writes the law on their hearts, do indeed belong to Christ. But still further, according to the same Paul, to belong to Christ means to be a member of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:27). Again further, to be a member of Christ, is also to be a member of His Church for the Church is the Body of Christ. So we seem to have found the much needed solution: Those who follow the Spirit of Christ, the Logos who writes the law on their hearts, are Christians, are members of Christ, are members of His Church. They may lack indeed external adherence; they may never have heard of the Church. But yet, in the substantial sense, without formal adherence, they do belong to Christ, to His Church. They can also be called sons of God, for Romans 8:14 adds: "All who are led by the Spirit are sons of God." As sons, of course, they are coheirs with Christ (Rom 8:17), and so will inherit the kingdom with Him. We can even add that objectively though probably those who drafted the text or voted for it did not realize it Vatican II taught the same thing: "For all who belong to Christ, having His Spirit, coalesce into one Church."98 In saying this, we are not contradicting the teaching of Pius XII (Mystical Body Encyclical). He spoke of some as being ordered to the Church by a certain desire which they did not recognize. We admit that. To add to truth is not to deny truth. Three possible objections remain. First: is our solution indifferentist? Not at all. For we insist that even these people who belong without formal adherence have the objective obligation to formally enter the Church. It is only their ignorance that excuses them. As we saw, Pius IX, so strong against indifferentism, concurs in our conclusion that somehow these people can be saved. Second: are we proposing mere naturalism, i.e., if one is naturally good, that is enough? Not at all. First the natural law is God's law too; second, these people objectively follow the Spirit of God, and so are on the supernatural plane; finally, they also have available actual graces, and use them, as the Vatican II's broad text said. God always offers actual graces to those who do what they can. Thirdly and finally: some would say that the Fathers and the Magisterium speak only of people before Christ after He came, formal entrance into the Church is necessary. We reply: First, the Magisterium texts speak in the present tense, not the paSt. Thus, Pius IX: "God by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments. . . ." And the Holy Office said: "It is not always required. . . ."

Vatican II similarly: "They who without their own fault . . . can attain eternal salvation." Second, the statements of the Fathers show a basic conviction that God must have made provision for men before Christ: the same thinking applies to those afer Christ. Further, St. Paul in Romans 5:15-19 insists strongly and over and over again that the redemption is more abundant than the fall. But if the coming of Christ caused countless millions to lose in practice all chance of salvation, then the redemption would not be superabundant it would be a tragedy, a harsh tragedy for these persons. And God would not act as if He were their God as St. Paul asserts in Romans 3:29-30. END NOTES 1 Gustave Thils, Pour une Thologie de Structure Plantaire, in Cahiers De la Revue Thologique de Louvain, 6, 1983. The literature on the general problem of the salvation of pagans is immense. Especially significant also are: P. Damboriena, La Salvacion en la Religiones No Cristianas, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid (hereinafter BAC), 1973, esp. pp. 19-54; Paul Hacker, "The Religions of the Gentiles as viewed by the Fathers of the Church" in Zeitschrift fr Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 54 (1970) pp. 253-78; idem, "The Religions of the Nations in the Light of Holy Scripture," ibid. 54 (1970) pp. 161-85; A. Luneau, "Les Pres et les Religions non-chrtiennes," in Nouvelle Revue Theologique 89 (1967) pp.821-41; 914-39; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Adam & Charles Black, London, 1968; L. Caperan, Le probleme du salut des infidles, 2d ed. 2 vols, Paris, 1934; R. Lombardi, The Salvation of the Unbeliever, tr. D. M. White, Newman, Westminster, 1956; K. Rahner, "Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions," in Theological Investigations 5, pp. 115-34, Helicon, Baltimore, 1966; J. Patout Burns, "The Economy of Salvation: Two Patristic Traditions," in Theological Studies 37 (1976) pp. 598-619. On Patristic exegesis of Romans 2:14-16, especially important are: Max Lachmann, Vom Geheimnis der Schpfung, Evangelisches Verlagswerk GMBH, Stuttgart, 1952, esp. pp. 95-135; 285-305; Karl Hermann Schelkle, Paulus, Lehrer der Vter, Die altkirchliche Auslegung von Rmer 1-11 2d ed. 1959, Patmos-Verlag, Dsseldorf. 2 Cf. E. A. Johnson, "Seminar on Christology" in Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America, 39 (1984) pp. 153-55. Cf. also J. Peter Schneller, in a review of J. P. Theisen, "The Ultimate Church and the Promise of Salvation" in Theological Studies 38 (1977) p. 777. 3 Cf. W. G. Most, The Consciousness of Christ, Christendom College Press, Front Royal, 1980, pp. 93-133. 4 Hermas, Shepherd, Similitudes 9.16. From Greek text in D. Ruiz Bueno, Padres Apostolicos, BAC, 2d ed. 1967. pp. 1071-72. 5 Justin, First Apology 46. From Greek text in D. Ruiz Bueno, Padres Apologistas Griegos BAC, 1964. pp. 250. 6 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.24.1. SC 1952 ed. (no number given) p.400. Cf. also ibid. 3.19.1. 7 cf. note 4 above. 8 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 5. 12. PG 9. 128. 9 Origen, Homily on Jesu Nave 3. 5. PG 12. 841. Cf. also idem in Rom 2. 9-10. 10 Cyprian, Epist. to Iubianus (#73) 21, in J. Campos, Obras de San Cipriano, BAC, 1964, pp. 688-89.

11 Lactantius, Institutiones 4. 30. 11. PL 6. 542. Cf. also Damboriena, op. cit. p. 30. 12 Augustine, De natura et gratia 2. 2. PL 44. 248-49. 13 Cf. Burns, art. cit., pp. 608-14. 14 Augustine, Contra Iulianum, 4. 3. 25. PL 44. 750. 15 Kelly, op. cit., p. 403. 16 Fulgentius, De fide ad Petrum 38. 81. CC 91A, p. 757. 17 Ibid. 36. 79. CC 91A, p. 756. 18 Ibid. 27. 68. 19 DS 792. 20 DS 802. 21 DS 870. 22 Thomas Aquinas, Contra errores Graecorum 36. #1125. 23 The text on the two swords seems stronger than it is. It was explained by Boniface VIII himself (DS 870): "For 40 years now we have been a legal expert, and we know that there are two powers ordained by God. . . . We say that in nothing have we wanted to usurp the jurisdiction of the king. . . ." 24 DS 1051. 25 DS 1351. 26 Cf. Augustine, De natura et gratia, cited above at notes 13 and 14. 27 DS 2866. Cf. also W. Most, "Religious Liberty: What the Texts Demand" in Faith & Reason 9 (1983) pp. 196-209. Further clarification of the fact that Vatican II does not clash with Pius IX (cf. p. 206) is this: Vatican II, in # 7 did make provision for more than just public order when it said that the state must exercise "due custody for public morality," and in #4 it said that the churches must abstain from any action that would involve "improper persuasion aimed at the less intelligent or the poor." Pius IX had said (cf. p. 201) that the state must do more than merely defend public order in regard to excesses in religious liberty. 28 DS 3870 and 3821. Some followers of Feeney insist that the fact that he was finally reconciled to the Church without retracting indicates the Church admitted Feeney had been right all along. This is not true: (1) The broad Magisterium texts (with repetition, so that we can claim infallibility for them) are incompatible with Feeney; (2) He was reconciled when quite old. The fact that he was not pushed to do more is an example of the widespread permissiveness that has done so much harm to the Church in our times. 29 Vatican II, Lumen gentium #16. Cf. Unitatis redintegratio #3.

30 Origen, Against Celsus 4. 7. PG 11. 1037. For a general view of Celsus, remarkably sympathetic, cf. W. den Boer, "La Polemique anti-chrtienne du II Siecle: 'La Doctrine de Verit' de Celse" in Athenaeum NS 54 (1976) pp. 309-18. Cf. also P. de Labriolle, La Reaction Paenne, L'Artisan du Livre, Paris, 1942. 31 First Clement 7. 5-7. Greek text in Ruiz Bueno, op. cit. BAC, pp. 183-84. 32 Justin, First Apology 46. Ruiz Bueno ed. BAC pp. 232-33. Cf. J. Danilou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture, tr. J. A. Baker, Philadelphia, Westminster, 1973, p. 41. On p. 44 Danilou says he thinks Socrates and others knew the Person of the Logos. 33 Cf. also N. Pycke, "Connaisance rationelle et connaissance de grce chez Saint Justin" in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 37 (1961) pp. 52-85. See also Justin 2. 10. 1-3. 34 Danielou, op. cit. p. 42. 35 Luneau, art. cit., p. 837 cites First Apology 22. 2 where Justin goes so far in using pagan resources as to compare the Logos to Hermes. 36 Hacker, art. cit., p. 258. 37 Cf. Patrick V. Dias, Kirche in der Schrift und im 2. Jahrhndert, in Handbuch der Dogmengieschichte, Herder, Freiburg, 1974, III. 3a, pp. 118-19; and Kelly, op. cit., p. 191. 38 Second Clement 14. 2. Ruiz Bueno ed. BAC, pp. 366-67. 39 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4. 28. 2. SC 100, p. 759. Cf. also Ignacio Escribano-Alberca, "Die Heilskonomische Enthaltung des Glaubens bei Irenaeus und Tertullian" in Das Dasein im Glauben, Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Herder, Freiburg, 1974, I, 2a, pp. 32-38, esp. p. 33. 40 Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition (tr. J. Bowden) John Knox, Atlanta, 2d ed. 1975. I. p. 103. Cf. Luneau, art. cit. p. 832: "Faut-il rapeller comment, pour Irne, la connaissance de Dieu demeure inscrite au fond du coeur humain et prpare sa venue." ("We should recall how, for Irenaeus, the knowledge of God remains inscribed in the depth of the human heart and prepares for His coming.") Strangely, A. Orbe, in an otherwise excellent study, Antropologia de San Ireneo, BAC, 1969, although he devotes pp. 502-15 to answering the objection of Celsus, does not seem to notice this point. Cf. also Danielou, op. cit. pp. 361-64; and P. V. Dias, op. cit. p. 161. 41 Against Heresies 4. 6. 7. SC 100, p. 453. Cf. also ibid. 5. 18. 2. 42 Ibid. 4. 22. 2. SC 100, p. 689. 43 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7. 17. PG 9. 552. 44 Stromata 1. 5. SC 1965 ed. (no number given) p. 65. Cf. Stromata 1. 20. 45 Danielou, op. cit. p. 52. 46 Hacker, art. cit. p. 261. 47 Ibid. p. 264.

48 Escribano-Alberca, op. cit. p. 50. Cf. ibid. p. 5l: "Gott wird durch keinerlei apodiktisch-beweisende Wissenschaft sonder nur durch die Gnade seines offenbarenden Logos erkannt. " ("God becomes known not by any kind of apodictically proved knowledge, but only through the grace of His revealing Logos.") Cf. also A. Brontese, La Soteria in Clemente Alessandrino, Universita Gregoriana, Roma, 1972, p. 283; cf. also p. 278. 49 Kelly, op. cit. p. 201. 50 Ibid. p. 202. 51 Origen, In Cant. 2. 11-12. PG 13. 134. 52 This accords with the belief of Origen that eventually all will be saved-for which membership in the Church is required. 53 Cf. Hermann Josef Vogt, Das Kirchenverstndnis des Origenes, in Bonner Beitrge zur Kirchengeschichte 4, Bhlau Verlag, Koln, Wien, 1974, pp. 205-10, and Damboriena, op. cit. , pp. 3337. Cf. also Origen, In Matt. 51. 870. PG 13. 1679. 54 Origen, Against Celsus 4. 7. PG 11. 1037. 55 Origen, On Romans II. 9-10. PG 14. 892-93. 56 Origen, Homily on Numbers 16. 1. PG 12. 691. Cf. Luneau, art. cit., p. 835. 57 J. Quasten, Patrology, Spectrum, Utrecht/Antwerp, 1966. III. pp. 357-58. 58 Arnobius, Against the Nations 2. 63. PL 5. 909-10. Cf. Damboriena, op. cit. p. 29 59 Eusebius, Church History 1. 1. 4. PG 20. 77. Cf. Orbe, op. cit. p. 507. 60 R. Muoz Palacios, "La Mediacin del Logos preexistente a la encarnacion en Eusebio de Cesrea" in Estudios Eclesisticos 43 (1968) pp. 381-414. 61 Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 18. 6. PG 35. 992; and Oration 8. 20. PG 35. 812. Cf. Luneau, art. cit., 831-32. 62 John Chrysostom, On Romans II. 5. PG 60. 428-29. Cf. Damboriena, op. cit., pp. 52-53. 63 Idem, Homilies on John 8. 1. PG 59. 67. 64 Ambrose, On Cain and Abel 2. 3. 11. PL 14. 364-65. 65 Cf. Kelly, op. cit., pp. 411-12, 416; Damboriena, op. cit., pp. 41- 48; Patout Burns, art. cit. pp. 608-10. 66 Augustine, De civitate Dei 21. 12, ed. B. Dombart, Lipsiae, Teubner, 1877, II. p. 514. 67 Augustine, De praedestinatione sanctorum 17. 34. PL 44. 985-86. 68 Idem, De diversis quaestionibus LXXXIII 68. 5. PL 40. 73.

69 Idem, De actis cum Felice Manichaeo 2. 8. PL 42. 540. 70 Idem. De correptione et gratia 13. 42. PL 44. 942. 71 For analysis of all texts of Augustine, cf. W. G. Most, op. cit., pp. 234-42. 72 Cf. Kelly, op. cit., p. 416; R. F. Evans, One and Holy. The Church in Latin Patristic Thought, S. P. C. K. London, 1972, pp. 100-01; and J. O. Meara, Charter of Christendom. The Significance of the City of God, Macmillan, N. Y. 1961, pp. 52-53. 73 Augustine, De civitate Dei 18. 47. Dombart II pp. 330-31. 74 Idem, Retractations 1. 13. 3. CC 57. p. 37. 75 Cf. Hacker, art. cit., p. 272. 76 Augustine, Epist. 102. 11-12. PL 33. 374. Cf #15; De Labriolle, p. 274. 77 Augustine, Enarrationes Ps 57. 1, CC 39. 708-09; De peccatorum meritis et remissione 1. 10-11; Enarr. in Ps. 118. 25. 4. CC 40. 1750. 78 W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 1979, III, pp. 194-95. 79 St. Prosper of Aquitaine, The Call of All Nations, translated & annotated by P. De Letter, Newman, Westminister, 1952, p. 17. 80 Jurgens, op. cit., III. p. 195. 81 Prosper, op. cit., 2. 5. PL 51. 652; and ibid. 2. 17. PL 51. 704. 82 Prosper, Responsiones ad capitula obiectionum Gallorum 3. PL 51. 158-59. Cf. Hacker, art. cit., pp. 277-78. 83 More texts and analysis in W. G. Most, op. cit. pp. 242-43. 84 On the two theories of Augustine, cf. again Most op. cit., pp. 225-43. 85 Nilus, Epist. 1. 154, to Maximian. PG 79. 145. 86 Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian 3. 107. PG 76. 665. Cf. Kelly, op. cit., p. 403. 87 Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretatio Epist. Ad Rom. 2. 14-16. PG 82. 70-72. 88 Idem, Remedy for Greek Diseases 6. 85-86. SC 57, pp. 284-85. Cf. Hacker, art. cit., pp. 268-70. 89 Leo the Great, Sermon 23. 4. PL 54. 202. Cf. also Sermon 31. 7 and 76. 3. Cf. also Damboriena, op. cit., pp. 48-49. 90 Gregory the Great, Epist. VII. 15. To George and Theodore CC 140, p. 465. Cf. Damboriena, op. cit., 49-50.

91 Idem, Homilies on Ezechiel 2. 3. 16. CC 142. p. 248. 92 Primasius, On Romans 2. 14-16. PL 68. 423-24. 93 John Damascene, Against Iconoclasts 11. PG 96. 1357. 94 Cf. Damboriena, op.cit., p. 85. 95 Haymo, Exposition on Romans 2. 14-16. PL 117. 381. 96 Oecumenius, On Romans 2. 14-16. PG 118. 356-60. 97 On the general problems of the exegesis of Romans 2. 14-16 cf. W. Most, "Focusing in St. Paul. A Resolution of Difficulties," in Faith & Reason II. 1976, pp. 47-70, esp. pp. 57-61. 98 Vatican II, Lumen gentium #49. Cf. Unitatis redintegratio #3. This article was taken from the Appendix of Fr. William Most's book, Our Father's Plan: God's Arrangements and Our Response. This item 964 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org

http://www.friarsminor.org/boston.html THE SALVATION OF NONCATHOLICS Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office August 8, 1949, to the Archbishop of Boston. (Controversy which arose at Boston College on the subject of the axiom, "Outside the Church there is no salvation.") We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office. Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on his apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded.

Obligation to enter the Church Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place, by which we are commanded to be incorporated by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to his Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth. Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation, without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory. The "desire" may suffice In his infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the Sacrament of Baptism and in reference to the Sacrament of Penance. The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. The implicit "desire" However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1948, "On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ". For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same August Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed". Toward the end of this same Encyclical Letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire", and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church".

With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion. Necessity of faith But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him". The Council of Trent declares: "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of his children". (Practical dispositions relative to Reverend Leonard Feeney.) Submission to the Church Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond, and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church `'only by an unconscious desire". Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

http://www.catholicism.org/pages/popes.htm Our Glorious Popes and the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus The Popes through the centuries have defended the doctrine "outside the Church there is no salvation. Here is small reference of their teachings on the matter: Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 - 590): "Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. ...Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. ...Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. ...[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church." (Denzinger 246-247) Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 - 604): "Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved." (Moralia) Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216): "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423)

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829): "We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. ...For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'" (Encyclical, Ubi Primum) Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846): "It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved." (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter) Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): "It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood." (Denzinger 1647) Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 - 1903): "This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church." (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus) "He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God." (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae) Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 - 1914): "It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation." (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane) Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922): "Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum) Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): "The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. ...Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos) Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 - 1958): "By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth." (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953) Then, as though to set this constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes "in concrete," so to speak, we have the following definitions from the Solemn Magisterium of the Church: Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved..." Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): "[The most Holy Roman Church]

firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

http://latincatholic.tripod.com/latincatholic/id2.html

The Witness of 26 Popes to the Dogma, No Salvation for non-Catholics. Compiled by David da Silva Pope St. Clement I, A.D. 88-97: "Heretical teachers pervert Scripture and try to get into Heaven with a false key, for they have formed their human assemblies later than the Catholic Church. From this previously-existing and most true Church, it is very clear that these later heresies, and others which have come into being since then, are counterfeit and novel inventions." (Epistle to the Corinthians)

Pope Saint Leo the Great, Doctor, A.D. 440-461: "But this mysterious function, the Lord indeed wishes to be the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that he has placed the principle charge on the blessed Peter, chief of the apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery." (Letter X) "For they who have received baptism from heretics are to be confirmed by the imposition of hands with only the invocation of the Holy Ghost, because they have received the bare form of baptism without the power of sanctification." (Letter CLIX) "Since they have received the form of baptism in some way or other [from heretics,] they are not to be baptized [again] but are to be united to the Catholics by imposition of hands, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit's power, which they could not receive from heretics." (Letter CLXVII)

Pope Hormisdas, A.D. 514-523: "The first thing required for salvation is to keep the norm of correct faith and to deviate in no way from what the Fathers have established, because it is not possible to lay aside the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, `You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.' These words are proved true by their effects because, in the Apostolic See, the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate. Desiring in no way to be separated from this hope and faith and following in all things what has been established by the Fathers, we anathematize all heretics." (Profession of faith prescribed for the Church; Inter ea quae)

Pope Pelagius II, A.D. 578-590: "Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. [...] Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. [...] Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. [... If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church." (Dilectionis Vestrae) "We can no more pray for a deceased infidel than we can for the devil, since they are condemned to the same eternal and irrevocable damnation." (Dialogues, IV)

Pope Saint Gregory the Great, Doctor, A.D. 590-604: "Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved." (Moralia) "Consider that therefore whoever is not in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have God." (Epistle to Schismatic Bishops) "And indeed we have learnt from the ancient institution of the Fathers that whosoever among heretics are baptized in the name of the Trinity, when they return to Holy Church, may be recalled to the bosom of mother Church either by unction of chrism, or by imposition of hands, or by profession of faith only. Hence the West reconciles Arians to the Catholic Church by imposition of hands, but the East by the unction of Holy chrism. But mono-physites and others are received by a true confession only, because holy baptism, which they have received among heretics, then acquires in them the power of cleansing, when either the former receive the Holy Spirit by imposition of hands, or the latter are united to the bowels of the holy and universal Church by reason of their confession of the true faith." (Epistle LXVII)

Pope Hadrian II, A.D. 867-872: Council of Constantinople IV against the schismatic heretic Photius: "The first thing required for salvation is to keep the norm of correct faith and to deviate in no way from what the Fathers have established, because it is not possible to lay aside the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, `You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.' These words are proved true by their effects because, in the Apostolic See, the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate."

Pope Sylvester II, A.D. 999-1003: "I profess that outside the Catholic Church, no one is saved." (Profession of Faith made as Archbishop of Rheims, June 991; Letters of Gerbert, NY: Columbia University Press.)

Pope Saint Leo IX, A.D. 1049-1054): [regarding the eastern so-called "Orthodox" schismatics]: "If you live not in the body which is Christ, you are none of His. Whose, then, are you? You have been cut off and will wither, and like the branch pruned from the vine, you will burn in the fire - an end which may God's goodness keep far from you."

"So little does the Roman Church stand alone, as you think, that in the whole world any nation that in its pride dissents from her is in no way a church, but a council of heretics, a conventicle of schismatics, and a synagogue of Satan." "As far as the pillars of the empire are concerned and its wise and honoured citizens, the city is most Christian and orthodox. But we, not enduring the unheard-of offense and injury done to the Holy Apostolic and First See, wishing to defend in every way the Catholic Faith, by the authority of the Holy and Undivided Trinity and of the Apostolic See, whose legates we are, declare that Michael, patriarch by abuse; [...] Leo called bishop of Achrida; [...] and all their followers in the aforesaid errors and presumption shall be: anathema, maranatha [...] with all the heretics and with the devil and his angels, unless they repent. Amen." (Sancta Romana Prima) [The "Orthodox" schismatics were thus excommunicated to burn with the devil and his angels. When they came to the Council of Florence to be momentarily reconciled, they professed to the pope that: "We have come to you our head. You are the foundation of the Church. Every member that has left you is sick, and wild beasts have devoured the flock that has separated itself from you. [...] You who have the power of the heavenly keys, open to us the gates of eternal life."]

Pope Innocent III, A.D. 1198-1216 (D423): "By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Profession of Faith for the Waldensians, Eius Exemplo) (D430) ***INFALLIBLE***: Ex cathedra: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215)

Pope Boniface VIII, A.D. 1294-1303: "We are compelled, our faith urging us, to believe and to hold; and we do firmly believe and simply confess; that there is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation or remission of sins; her Spouse proclaiming it in the canticles, "My dove, my undefiled is but one, she is the choice one of her that bore her;" which represents one mystical body, of which body the head is Christ, but of Christ, God. In this Church there is one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism. There was one ark of Noah, indeed, at the time of the flood, symbolizing one Church; and this being finished in one cubit had, namely, one Noah as helmsman and commander. And, with the exception of this ark, all things existing upon the earth were, as we read, destroyed. "This Church, moreover, we venerate as the only one, the Lord saying through His prophet, "Deliver my soul from the sword, my darling from the power of the dog." He prayed at the same time for His Soul; that is, for Himself the Head, and for His Body; which Body, namely, He called the one and only Church on account of the unity of the Faith promised, of the sacraments, and of the love of the Church. She is that seamless garment of the Lord which was not cut but which fell by lot. Therefore of this one and only Church there is one body and one head; not two heads as if it were a monster: Christ, namely, and the vicar of Christ, Saint Peter [who are one head, Christ and His Vicar:] "Feed my sheep." My sheep, He said, using a general term, and not designating these or those particular sheep; from which it is plain that He committed to him all His sheep. "If, then, the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they necessarily confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ; for the Lord says, in John, that there is one fold, one shepherd, and one only.

"We are told by the word of the Gospel that in this His fold there are two swords; a spiritual, namely, and a temporal. For when the apostles said, "Behold here are two swords", the Lord did not reply that this was too much, but enough. Surely he who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter wrongly interprets the word of the Lord when He says, "Put up thy sword in its scabbard." Both swords, the spiritual and the material, therefore, are in the power of the Church; the one, indeed, to be wielded for the Church, the other by the Church; the one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hand of kings and knights, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. One sword, moreover, ought to, be under the other, and the temporal authority to be subjected to the spiritual. For when the Apostle says "There is no power but of God, and the powers that are of God are ordained," they would not be ordained unless sword were under sword and the lesser one, as it were, were led by the other to great deeds. "For according to St. Dionysius the law of Divinity is to lead the lowest through the intermediate to the highest things. Not, therefore, according to the law of the universe are all things reduced to order equally and immediately; but the lowest through the intermediate, the intermediate through the higher. But that the spiritual exceeds any earthly power in dignity and nobility we ought the more openly to confess, the more spiritual things excel temporal ones. This also is made plain to our eyes from the giving of tithes, and the benediction and the sanctification; from the acceptation of this same power, from the control over those same things. For, the truth bearing witness, the spiritual power has to establish the earthly power, and to judge if it be not good. Thus, concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power, is verified the prophecy of Jeremias: "See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms," and the other things which follow. "Therefore if the earthly power err, it shall be judged by the spiritual power; but if the lesser spiritual power err, by the greater. But if the greatest, it can be judged by God alone, not by man, the Apostle hearing witness. A spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is judged by no one. This authority, moreover, even though it is given to man and exercised through man, is not human but rather divine, being given by divine lips to Peter and founded on a rock for him and his successors through Christ Himself whom He has confessed; the Lord Himself saying to Peter: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind," etc. Whoever, therefore, resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordination of God, unless he makes believe, like the Manichean, that there are two beginnings. This we consider false and heretical, since by the testimony of Moses, not "in the beginnings," but "in the beginning," God created the heavens and the earth. *** INFALLIBLE ***: Ex cathedra: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter." (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)

Pope Clement VI, A.D. 1342-1352 (D 550 b,l): "We ask if you believe and the Armenians obedient to you, that no man of those travelling outside the faith of the same Church and obedience to the Pontiff of the Romans can finally be saved; [...and] if you have believed and believe that all those who have set themselves up against the Faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence have been damned and have descended to the perpetual torments of hell." (Super Qibusdam)

Pope Eugenius IV, A.D. 1431-1447, at Council of Florence ***INFALLIBLE***: Ex cathedra: "It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics, can become

participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Cantate Domino, A.D. 1442)

Pope Paul III (A.D. 1534-1549): "To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction. The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in suchwise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office "Go ye and teach all nations." He said "all," without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith. The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith. We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living." (Sublimus Deus)

Pope Saint Pius V (A.D. 1566-1572): "He Who reigns on high, to Whom is given all power in Heaven and on earth, has entrusted His Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation to one person on earth alone, namely: to Peter, the prince of the Apostles and to Peter's successor, the Roman Pontiff, to be governed by Him with the fullness of power."

Pope Benedict XIV, A.D. 1740-1758 (D.1473): "Without this faith of the Catholic Church no one can be saved." (Profession of Faith for the Orientals, Nuper ad Nos)

Pope Leo XII, A.D. 1823-1829: "It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth by which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. [...] For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: "If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother."" (Ubi Primum)

Pope Gregory XVI, A.D. 1831-1846 (D.1613): "Now we examine another prolific cause of evils by which, we lament, the Church is at present afflicted, namely indifferentism, or that base opinion which has become prevalent everywhere through the deceit of wicked men, that eternal salvation of the soul can be acquired by any profession of faith whatsoever, if morals are conformed to the standard of the just and the honest. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbour of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that those who are not with Christ are against Him, and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate." Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me." A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"" (Mirari Vos Arbitramur) "For in fact, you know as well as We do, Venerable Brothers, with what constancy our Fathers endeavoured to inculcate this article of faith which these innovators dare to deny, namely, the necessity of Catholic faith and unity to obtain salvation. This is what was taught by one of the most famous of the disciples of the Apostles, Saint Ignatius Martyr, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians: "Do not deceive yourselves," he wrote to them, "he who adheres to the author of a schism will not possess the kingdom of God." Saint Augustine and the other bishops of Africa, assembled in 412 in the Council of Cirta expressed themselves in the following terms on the subject: "He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however laudable his conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy eternal life, and the anger of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ." And without citing here the witness of almost innumerable other ancient Fathers, We will limit Ourselves to quoting Our glorious predecessor, Saint Gregory the Great, who gives explicit testimony to the fact that such is the teaching of the Catholic Church on this head. "The holy universal Church," he says, "teaches that God cannot be truly adored except within its fold: she affirms that all those who are

outside her will not be saved." It is also stated in the decree on faith published by another of Our predecessors, Innocent III, in concert with the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, "one indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved." Finally, the same teaching is expressed in the professions of faith which have been proposed by the Apostolic See; in the one which all the Latin Churches use; as also in the two others, one of which is received by the Greeks, and the other by all other Eastern Catholics. If we have cited these authorities among so many others We might have added to them, it was not, Venerable Brothers, with the intention of teaching you an article of faith as if you were ignorant of it. Far be it from us to entertain so absurd and so damaging a suspicion in your regard! But the astonishing boldness with which certain innovators have dared to attack one of our most important and obvious dogmas has made so painful an impression upon Us that We could not prevent Ourselves from speaking at some length on this matter. Strive to eradicate these slithering errors with all your strength." (Summo Iugiter Studio)

Pope Pius IX, A.D. 1846-1878: "It is necessary that you inculcate this salutary teaching in the souls of those who exaggerate the power of human reason to such a point that they dare, by its power, to investigate and explain the mysteries themselves, than which nothing is more foolish, nothing more insane. Strive to call them back from such a perversity of mind, explaining indeed that nothing was granted to men by God's Providence more excellent than the authority of the divine faith, that this faith is to us like a torch in the darkness, that it is the leader that we follow to Life, that it is absolutely necessary for salvation, since "without faith it is impossible to please God," and "he that believeth not shall be condemned (Mark 16, 16)."" (Singulari Quadam) I Vatican Council, A.D. 1870: (D. 1791): "Moreover, although the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the intellect, nevertheless, no one can "assent to the preaching of the gospel" as he must to attain salvation, "without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all a sweetness in consenting to and believing in the truth." [... (D. 1793):] Since without faith it is impossible to please God, no one is justified without it, nor will anyone attain eternal life unless he perseveres to the end in it. Moreover, in order that we may satisfactorily perform the duty of embracing the true faith and of continuously persevering in it, God, through His only-begotten Son, has instituted the Church, and provided it with clear signs of His institution, so that it can be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word. [... (D. 1833):] The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the right faith." "The true Church is one, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman; unique: the Chair founded on Peter by the Lord's words; outside her fold is to be found neither the true faith nor eternal salvation, for it is impossible to have God for Father if one has not the Church for Mother, and it is in vain that one flatters oneself on belonging to the Church, if one is separated from the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded. There could be no greater crime, no more detestable injury than opposition to Christ, than the rending of the Church purchased and engendered in His divine Blood, than the furious attacks of pernicious discord against the peaceful and single-minded people of God, to the detriment of evangelical charity." (Source?) The following three propositions are condemned as errors: (D1716): "In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation." (D1717): "We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ." (D1718): "Protestantism is nothing else than a different form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is possible to serve God as well as in the Catholic Church." (Syllabus of Errors)

Pope Leo XIII, A.D. 1878-1903: "He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God." (Sapientiae Christianae) "By the ministry of this Church so gloriously founded by Him, He willed to perpetuate the mission which He had Himself received from His Father; and, on the one hand, having put within her all the means necessary for man's salvation, on the other hand, He formally enjoined upon men the duty of obeying His Church as Himself, and religiously taking her as a guide of their whole lives. "He that heareth you, heareth Me; he that despiseth you, despiseth Me." Therefore, it is from the Church alone that the law of Christ must be asked: and consequently, if for man Christ is the way, the Church, too, is the way, the former of Himself and by His nature, the latter by delegation and communication of power. Consequently, all those who wish to reach salvation outside the Church, are mistaken as to the way and are engaged in a vain effort. [...] "Man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them and keep them inviolate through life - and even this is impossible without the grace of our Redeemer - still it is in vain for any one without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If any one abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth." "He that believeth not shall be condemned (Mark 16:16.)"" (Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus) "Another head like to Christ must be invented, that is, another Christ, if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another. 'See what you must beware of; see what you must avoid; see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off - a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic; the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member' (St. Augustine). "The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord; leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. 'Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ. [...] He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation' (St. Cyprian). [...] "The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held any beliefs one point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. 'There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition' (Auctor, died A.D. 254). "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would

recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. 'No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic' (St. Augustine). [...] "Let all those, therefore, who detest the wide-spread irreligion of our times, and acknowledge and confess Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and the Saviour of the human race, but who have wandered away from the Spouse [the Church], listen to Our voice. Let them not refuse to obey Our paternal charity. Those who acknowledge Christ must acknowledge Him wholly and entirely. 'The Head and the body are Christ wholly and entirely. The Head is the only-begotten son of God, the body is His Church; the bridegroom and the bride, two in one flesh. All who dissent from the Scriptures concerning Christ, although they may be found in all places in which the Church is found, are not in the Church; and again all those who agree with the Scriptures concerning the Head, but do not communicate in the unity of the Church, are not in the Church' (St. Augustine). "And with the same yearning Our soul goes out to those whom the foul breath of irreligion has not entirely corrupted, and who at least seek to have the true God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, as their Father. Let such as these take counsel with themselves, and realize that they can in no wise be counted among the children of God, unless they take Christ Jesus as their Brother, and at the same time the Church as their mother." (Satis Cognitum) "This is Our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church; the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate." (Allocution for the 25th Anniversary of His Election, February 20, 1903)

Pope Saint Pius X, A.D. 1903-1914: "And while We wait, it is Our duty to recall to everyone, great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation, to obtain peace, and even prosperity in our life here below. That is why, to use the words of the Holy Pontiff, we say: "Make firm the progress of your souls, as you have begun to do, with the firmness of this rock: on it, as you know, Our Redeemer founded the Church throughout the world, so that sincere hearts, guiding their steps by her, would not stray on to the wrong road."" (Jucunda Sane) "Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect."" (Acerbo Nimis)

Pope Benedict XV, A.D. 1914-1922: "Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

Pope Pius XI, A.D. 1922-1939: "Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern "Orthodox" schismatics] and the reformers [the Protestants], obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful?" Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of Faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."" (Mortalium Animos)

Pope Pius XII, A.D. 1939-1958: "By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth." (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953) "No one can depart from the teaching of Catholic truth without loss of faith and salvation." (Ad Apostolorum Principis) "O Mary Mother of Mercy and Refuge of Sinners! We beseech thee to look with pitying eyes on poor heretics and schismatics. Do thou, who art the Seat of Wisdom, enlighten the minds wretchedly enfolded in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may clearly recognize the Holy, Catholic, Roman Church to be the only true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which neither sanctity nor salvation can be found." (The Raccolta, Benzinger Brothers, Boston, 1957, No. 626. The prayer was also indulgunced by Pope Pius IX.) "If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime or more divine than the expression "the mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. "That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ." But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body." Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "spiritual" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond. [...] "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the

Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuses to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. [...] "They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous errors who believe that they can accept Christ as the head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it. [...] "We deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical." (Mystici Corporis (on the Mystical Body of Christ;) cf. The Papal Encyclicals 1939-1958, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981) "Some think that they are not bound by the doctrine proposed in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago [Mystici Corporis] and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation." (Humani Generis)

Pope John XXIII, A.D. 1958-1963: "The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: "I am the door of the sheep." Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth." (Homily to the Bishops assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958.)

Pope Paul VI, A.D. 1963-1978: "Not without sorrow can we hear people continually claiming to love Christ but without the Church; to listen to Christ but not to the Church; to belong to Christ but outside the Church. The absurdity of this dichotomy is clearly evident in this phrase of the Gospel: "Any one who rejects you, rejects me."" (Evangelii Nuntiandi)

Pope John Paul I, Aug.-Sep. A.D. 1978: "According to the words of Saint Augustine, who takes up an image dear to the ancient Fathers, the ship of the Church must not fear, because it is guided by Christ and by His Vicar. "Although the ship is tossed about, it is still a ship. It alone carries the disciples and receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea, but, outside it, one would immediately perish." Only in the Church is salvation. "Outside it one perishes."" (First Allocution, August 27, 1978, L'Osservatore Romano, August 28,29, 1978.)

http://www.geocities.com/orthopapism/eens_papal.html

No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church: Papal Teachings by Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi A brief list follows of all the popes and Councils that infallible condemned the implicit faith heresy and infallibly taught the dogma "Outside the Church there is no Salvation" in the exact same sense as their predecessors. They all clearly teach that there are absolutely no exceptions, no exceptions for men who are invincibly ignorant of the Church to be saved. Pope Clement I, (90-100) "And we also, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves nor by our own wisdom or understanding or piety, nor by the works which we have done in holiness of heart, but through the faith by which Almighty God has justified all men from the beginning." (To the Corinthians, IV:32, The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome) Athanasian Creed "Whoever wishes to be save must, above all, keep the Catholic faith: for unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire he will undoubtedly be lost forever... This is the Catholic faith: everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly, otherwise he cannot be saved." (D. 39-40) Pope St. Leo the Great, (440-461) "Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18) These words are the worlds of life and just as they raise up to Heaven those who confess them, so do they plunge down into Hell those who deny them." (Sermon 83, PL54:429; SS vol. III: 267-268) Pope St. Hormisdas, (514-523) "The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers." (Book on the Profession of Faith, (D. 171)). Pope Pelagius II, (579-590) Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 - 590): "Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. ...Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. ...Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. ...[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church." (D. 246-247) Pope St. Gregory the Great, (590-604) Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 - 604): "Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved." (Moralia) Pope Adrain II, (867-872) "The first requirement of salvation is to keep to the standard of the true faith." (ACTIO I, (D. 171, n.1,

quoting the Rule of Pope St. Hormisdas, IV Constantinople) Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, (1215) Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216): "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (D. 423) Pope Boniface VIII, (1294-1303) Pope Boniface VIII, in Unam Sanctum, 1302: "With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: "One is my dove, my perfect one. One she is of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her" [Cant. 6:8]. Certainly Noe had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect on one cubit had one ruler and guide, namely Noe, outside which we read all living things on the earth were destroyed... .This is that "seamless tunic" of the Lord [John 19:23], which was not cut, but came forth by chance. Therefore, of the one and only Church (there is) one body, one head, not two heads as a monster, namely, Christ and Peter, the Vicar of Christ and the successor of Peter, the Lord Himself saying to Peter: "Feed my sheep" [John 21:17]. He said "My," and generally, not individually these or those, through which it is understood that He entrusted to Peter and his successors, of necessity let them confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says in John, "to be one flock and one Shepherd" [John 10:16]." Pope Clement VI, (1342-1352) "Not one man of those traveling outside the faith of the Church and outside obedience to the Pontiff of the Romans can finally be saved All those who set themselves up against the faith of the Roman Church and who die in final impenitence will be damned and descend into the perpetual torments of Hell." (Super Quibusdam, D. 570 b, 1) Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, (1445) Council of Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1441: "The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." Council of Trent, (1563) Pope Gregory XIII, (1572-1585) "No one can be saved outside this true Catholic faith." (Profession of Faith, D. 1085, D. 1000 Pope Benedict XIV, (1740-1758)

"No one can be saved without the faith of the Catholic Church." (Nuper Ad Nos, D. 1473) Pope Leo XII, (1823-1829) Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829): "We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. ...For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'" (Encyclical, Ubi Primum) Pope Pius VIII, (1829-1830) "It will be especially fitting to remember this firm dogma of our religion: that outside the true Catholic faith no one can be saved." (cf. Recollections of the Last Four Popes, Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman, London: 1858) Pope Gregory XVI, (1831-1846) Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846): "It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved." (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter) Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878) "It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood." (Denzinger 1647) Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem, 1854 "Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and had taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition after death of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood. Truths of this sort should be deeply fixed in the minds of the faithful, lest they be corrupted by false doctrines, whose object is to foster an indifference toward religion, which we see spreading widely and growing strong for the destruction of souls." Pope Leo XIII, (1878-1903) "Those who acknowledge Christ must acknowledge Him completely and entirely. The Head is the only-begotten Son of God; the Body is His Church. All who dissent from the Scriptures concerning Christ are not in the Church, and all who agree with the Scriptures concerning the Head but who do not communicate in the unity of the Church are not in the Church. They can in no way be counted among the children of God unless they take Jesus Christ as their Brother and, at the same time, the Church as their Mother Consequently, all who wish to reach salvation outside the Church are mistaken as to the way and are engaged in a futile effort Christianity is, in fact incarnate in the Catholic Church; it is identified with that perfect and spiritual society which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and has for its visible head the Roman Pontiff This is Our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it upon your minds,

all of you: by Gods commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church." (Annum Ingressi Sumus, Papal Teachings of the Church 652-653; Tametsi, PTC 647) Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 - 1914) "It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation." (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane) " Pope Benedict XV, (1914 1922) "Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum) Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939) "The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. ...Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos) Pope Pius XII Mystici Corporis Christi: "22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free". As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commandsas a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit." Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 - 1958): "By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth." (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953) Recommended Reading: 1. Richard J.M. Ibranyi, "Canon Law, Infallibility, and Vigilance," 2. " Richard J.M. Ibranyi, Exurge Michael Issue #2, "Hutton Gibson: The Implicit Faith Heresy and Baptism Schism," 3. "Exurge Michael Issue #3, Where are the Catholic Bishops and Priests?" 4. "Strange Voices, Book Three, Why we lost the Pope (not the Papacy) and the Mass." 5. "The Implicit Faith Heresy and Baptism Schism: A Debate with Fr. Lucian Pulvermacher." R. J. M. I., 674 South Foch St., T or C, NM 87901. Email. RJMI@email.com Website: www.CatholicHaven.com Maintained by Robert Yaklin. Send for a free catalogue.

http://www.tldm.org/News6/Church2.htm Outside the Catholic Church no salvation

"My child and My children, you are all My children. I judge you not by color or race, and I do not judge you by your creed; however, should the knowledge of the One True Church be given to you, and the way to Heaven along the narrow road be given to you, you will follow it or you will be rejected." - Our Lady, August 21, 1985

(The following is taken from the booklet, "Why the Catholic Church says 'Investigate'", + Imprimatur Joseph E. Ritter, Archbishop of St. Louis, January 24, 1949):

Non-Catholics who are acquainted with this age-old teaching of the Catholic Church are invariably disturbed and annoyed by it. It is, perhaps, the one complaint against the Church in which all non-Catholic Christians are united. Some call it unreasonable nonsense others brand it as un-Christian arrogance and intolerance, or a doctrine utterly unfitting a merciful God and the generous-hearted Christ. Catholics, however, point out that it is the Christian teaching of Christ Himself the only complete and consistent interpretation of His work as the Savior of mankind. The whole question is unfortunately confused by the fact that so many people have an extremely vague understanding of the Catholic claim to be the One, True Church outside of which salvation is unattainable. In brief, outside the Churchno salvation must be understood as applying to those adults who remain outside the Catholic Church in deliberately sinful opposition to the known truth that the Church was established by Christ as a necessary means of their salvation. This obviously involves on their part opposition to Christ and to the will of God. It most certainly does not mean that Catholics believe mere membership in the Catholic Church is positive and unfailing assurance that all Catholics will be saved. Nor does it mean that all non-Catholics, merely because they are not Catholics, are headed for Hell. Following the teaching of their Church, Catholics believe that Christ is the Savior of all men that He offered His life and death as an atonement for the sins of all mankind; and, therefore, all men can be saved. This was the thought of St. Paul when he spoke of the Savior who wishes all men to be saved and

to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:4-5) It is likewise Catholic belief that the Savior established one and only one Church, membership in which is a strict obligation for those who would benefit by His death. Evidence of His will in this matter is plentiful in the New Testament. Did He not clearly state unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God? (John 3:5). If this means anything at all, it means that Baptism is necessary for salvation. But by Baptism people become members of His Church: For in one spirit, we are all baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13) and that body is the Church, which is indeed His body (Eph. 1:23). If Christian Baptism is necessary for salvation and by Baptism we become members of His Church, membership in His Church is most certainly necessary. After His resurrection, Christ solemnly charged His apostles: Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned. (Mark 16:15). Does not this involve the obligation to believe and to be baptized and thereby to become a member of His Church? In the light of these words, can he who refuses hope to please God and save his soul? That Christ intended all men to become members of His Church is clear from His description of Himself as the Good Shepherd: I am the Good Shepherd and I lay down my life for my sheep. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. (John 10:14-16). The one fold is nothing else than His Church for, as St. Paul said to those whom he had ordained at Ephesus: Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of God (Acts 20: 28).

Heathens and Publicans The obligation of becoming not only a member, but an obedient and loyal member of His Church, was made plain by Christ when he instructed His followers how they should deal with their incorrigible brethren: but if he refuses to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican (an outsider). (Mt. 18:17). His Apostles did not mistake Christs meaning. St. Paul labored unceasingly for the Church which he knew men were obliged to accept. A factious man avoid after a first and second admonition, he wrote to Titus, knowing that such a one is perverted and sins, being self-condemned. (Titus 3:11). Surely if defection from the Church is so serious, so also must be the consequences for anyone outside the Church who deliberately rejects membership which is offered to him. The plain fact of the matter is that Christ identified Himself so closely with His Church (As the Father has sent me, I also send you He who hears you hears me, he that despises you despises me) that the rejection of the Church is a rejection of Christ.

Willful rejection The Catholic Church has always applied the principle outside the Church, no salvation to those who are knowingly and wilfully separated from the Church and, therefore, have knowingly and willfully separated themselves from ChristWho is the Way, the Truth and the Lifeand in whose name only can men be saved. The words knowingly and wilfully are most important because they clearly indicate the sinful dispositions of some who are outside the Church and for whom there is no hope of salvation unless they mend their ways. He who knows that the Catholic Church is the One True Church who knows it is his duty to become a member and freely decides against it is thereby putting himself outside the way of salvation that Christ traced for us. No matter what his motives may befear of what others, friends and relatives, will think a marriage situation which would not be acceptable to the Catholic Church a proud reluctance to submit to authorityno such reasons can excuse him, for he is outside the Church through his own fault.

Should I be a Catholic? And there is no salvation for those who doubt. They know not which way to turn or which course to take. Can I stay where I am, they ask themselves, or should I become a Catholic? But they never make sufficient effort to settle their doubt and they drift through life without doing anything about it. Such negligence in the all-important matter of finding the necessary means whereby they can attain the very purpose of their lives is sinful and they are inexcusably rash. Christ would not have asked the Father to forgive His executioners, if it was not possible that they be forgiven, because they knew not what they did. God can and will forgive those who know not what they do those who have been unknowingly led into error, which they would willingly forsake for the truthif they but knew the truth.

Misinformed There are those upon whose ears the words of Christs Gospel have never fallen, but who sincerely believe in the one true God and strive faithfully to live up to what they know to be His will. If they knew Christ and His Church and the importance of Baptism, they would welcome the opportunity to be numbered among His flock. For them, salvation is possible. And there are those who have only a nodding acquaintance with Christs Church, but who have been impressed with the importance of Christ and accept Him as their personal Savior. If they realized the importance of the Church and the value of true Baptism and all Christs seven Sacraments, they would become Catholics tomorrow. For them also, salvation is possible. And there are some who have rejectednot the Churchbut an utterly false idea of the Church planted in their mind by those whom they have been taught to respect. In a way, they are honestly hostile to the Catholic Church and reject it with a good but erroneous conscience. Their sincerity is such that if

they knew the Catholic Church as it really is and were no longer blinded by false propaganda they would willingly become Catholics. For them, salvation is possible. In these cases, the fact that people are not Catholics does not mean they have rejected Christ or the will of God, as they know it. Many of them are in error with regard to Christs teaching, due to the lack of knowledge for which they are not sinfully responsible. And God will not hold them accountable. If death finds them free from serious sin and enjoying the grace and friendship of God, their salvation is assured.

Way to salvation It is likewise true that inside the Church there is no salvation for the Catholic who defies the laws of God and never repents and whom death finds preferring his own sinful will to the will of his Creator. Living in the grace of God, keeping His Commandments and avoiding serious sin is not easy in todays world. And membership in Christs Churchwhich was started on its way through history by the Apostles under the leadership of Peter which has always worshipped God as the Apostles worshipped Him and taught and practiced all things Christ commandedgives Catholics tremendous advantages which non-Catholics do not have. Judged by correct Christian standards, the lives of some individual Catholics may not be better than that of their non-Catholic neighbors, but as Catholics, they are decidedly better off.

The True Faith They are better off because they have the True Faith, with which it is possible to please God, even though, through their own fault, they do not do so. Their Church assures them, as no other does, that the authority of God Himself is behind the truths they believe, and that the protection from error which Christ promised guides His Church in teaching them. Thus they are free from fear and doubt until they have the time and opportunity to investigate the evidence and test the facts to the satisfaction of their own minds. This is why, in a confused and doubting world, Catholics always appear to be sure of themselves. They are better off because they find in their Church all the means Christ left for living a holy Christian life. They have an authority to which they can go for guidance and which makes laws solely for their spiritual welfare. And at their disposal are the seven Sacramentsnot one or two, but sevenwhich are so necessary for normal Christian living.

"You have been given by your baptism entrance into the only true religion upon earth, the Roman Catholic Church under My Son, Jesus. Though man in his arrogance and pride has forgotten His role and His rule, you must carry it forward. Retain the Faith and the truth in the hearts of mankind." - Our Lady of the Roses, September 7, 1978

--------------------------------

Our Lady of the Roses awesome Bayside Prophecies... From http://www.tldm.org/../Bayside/

These prophecies came from Jesus, Mary, and the saints to Veronica Lueken at Bayside, NY, from 1968 to 1995. ONLY TRUE RELIGION "O My children, I will not go into a long discourse now with you about charity and love for your neighbor, but you must understand: you cannot judge your neighbor. You must pray for them. However, you cannot become weak and permissive. You must stand forth as bearers of the light, carriers of the truth. You have been given by your baptism entrance into the only true religion upon earth, the Roman Catholic Church under My Son, Jesus. Though man in his arrogance and pride has forgotten His role and His rule, you must carry it forward. Retain the Faith and the truth in the hearts of mankind." - Our Lady of the Roses, September 7, 1978 YOUR BIRTHRIGHT "As in the past, rejection has been the start of a fallen man. Sin has become a way of life with many. You live in a delusion if you believe that you can offend the Eternal Father and then gain eternal life in the Kingdom. No, I say to you: many are called, but few are chosen. "Ask and you shall receive, believe and you will be given the way. But you must merit the Kingdom. Your birthright was a start, but you must make your way to the Kingdom. Others may gain these graces for you by prayer and acts of sacrifice, but you will accept or reject the key." - Jesus, May 26, 1976 RELIGION OF THE CROSS "There is only one religion that can save your country and all of the countries of the world: the religion of the cross and My Son's sacrifice upon that cross." - Our Lady of the Roses, November 25, 1978 SEPARATED BRETHREN "O My children, pray much! We do not want to see a division in My Son's House. The Roman Catholic Church must remain one! But this does not mean, as the church of man states, that you will bring all manner of heretics and separated brethren in. No, My children, that is an error, a delusion from satan. You cannot change My Son's House and bring them in and change for them! They must change and come back to the original rule given by My Son and those who were with Him in the building of the foundation. "I repeat, My child and My children: separated brethren must change. They have protested in the past; they have taken themselves away from the truth and the one true Church. They must reject the errors they have made in the past and come back and start again. They cannot bring their errors into My Son's House. "You are opening the doors now for all manner of heretics, separated brethren. They do not come to unite in good spirit and heart; they come to take over. They seek to change you, O pastors, who are being deluded. And what do I see in My Son's House but separated brethren upon His pulpit! Even from the temples, the synagogues of satan, upon His pulpit! And for what? "And who are My pastors now that have joined in this plan of destruction? Who ordained some of them? Not legitimate hands. They come to destroy. They come in like rats, burrowing, undermining My Son's Church! Do you think you are not watched? Are you above your Creator that you think you can deceive the world permanently? No, I say unto you! You are being given your time, for you who have given yourselves to satan are now exposing your true nature to the world." - Our Lady of the Roses,

March 18, 1977 ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST "There are many deceptions taking place among you, and one being the falsification of the manner of the salvation of souls. When I was upon earth, I established the rules and I gave you My Church, My House. However, now I watch as many have gone forward with itching ears and novelty, and they are setting upon the world a new religion." - Jesus, May 20, 1978 WILL STAND "Do not be deluded, My children, by the agents of satan among you in human form who preach doctrines of devils. The truth has been given to mankind through the ages. The Holy Roman Catholic Church of My Son will stand. The members shall be reduced to few. Only a remnant, My child, shall carry the banner Faithful and True. But the gates of hell shall fight a heavy battle against My Son's Church, but they shall not succeed." - Our Lady of the Roses, May 14, 1977 ONLY SANCTIFIED HOUSE "Your children are wandering into the web of satan, going farther from the House of My Son. The truth is being removed from their hearts. They are setting among themselves groups. They shall not remove from their lives vows of My Son. As the only sanctified House upon earth, their souls will be destroyed when they are not given the Bread of living life. This Bread will only be obtained in the sanctified House of My Son. Satan seeks to remove the tabernacle from among you." - Our Lady of the Roses, August 5, 1973 Directives from Heaven... http://www.tldm.org/directives/directives.htm

D123 - Catholic Church, Part 1 PDF Logo PDF D124 - Catholic Church, Part 2 PDF Logo PDF D125 - Ecumenism PDF Logo PDF | Home | Introduction | Prophecies | Directives | Order Form | Testimonies | Veronica | News | Photos | Bible | Magazine | Newsletters | Radio Show | We encourage everyone to print or email copies of this web page to all the Bishops and all the clergy. Also, send this page to as many people as possible. The electronic form of this document is copyrighted. Quotations are permissible as long as this web site is acknowledged through hyperlink to: http://www.tldm.org Copyright These Last Days Ministries, Inc. 1996 - 2003 All rights reserved. P.O. Box 40 Lowell, MI 49331-0040 Revised: June 02, 2004

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/600515/posts

There is considerable confusion about the Catholic teaching of salvation. I found this on the internet. It was written by a former Presbyterian who became Catholic as an adult. It should be easy to understand he explains the docterine very well. ......... The phrase (in Latin, "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" or "Outside the Church there is no salvation") is a very ancient one, going back to the very early days of Christianity. It was originally meant to affirm the necessity of baptism and Christian faith at a time when (a) A number of Christians were being tempted under torture to renounce their faith and deny Christ. (He's talking about the Roman Empire and Nero's persecution of Christians, throwing them to lions and such.) (b) Large groups of Christians were being led into "pseudo-Christian" cult-type groups, which were actually just a front for pagan philosophy and religion. (Such as the cult of Mithras which I think was practiced around the time after Jesus died.) In response, bishops repeated that, if a person were to be aware of the meaning of Christ and then freely deny him or reject him, they had essentially turned away from God and the salvation he offers. As Christians, we believe that we are saved only through Jesus. As St. Peter reminds his audience in Acts 4:12: "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved." In most cases, this means that we believe baptism in water, in the name of the Trinity, is the fundamental requirement for salvation. However, even from the beginning, the great Christian writer and teacher St. Augustine said that the salvation imparted through baptism can also be imparted through other means: specifically, through the "baptism of blood" (a non-Christian who dies defending Christian beliefs or holy places) and "the baptism of desire" (a non-Christian who has expressed a firm desire to become a Christian, and who shows all the signs of living a Christian life, but who dies before baptism). In both of those cases, the Church has always recognized that the Holy Spirit leads people to God in ways which we cannot always explain or document. God is able to save anyone he chooses. We trust that he often does this is ways that are not obvious to us, within the hearts of individuals who are sincerely seeking the truth. Otherwise, it would imply that all of humanity was excluded from salvation before Christ came, and that much of humanity (which has not had the opportunity to hear the Christian message until recently) was doomed to be eternally separated from God. This would imply a very cruel and elitist God. Our belief as Christians and Catholics is that God desires the salvation of all people even those who are not Christian. How he achieves that, however, is a mystery. But we know that our God is a loving God who would not allow people to suffer on account of an ignorance that they were not responsible for. The Church teaches that baptism, faith, and a life lived in Christ are necessary for salvation. However, Vatican II also taught that, within every human heart, God places the law of conscience. Everybody has a deep sense of right and wrong which ultimately comes from God, and which will lead people to God if they attempt to follow their conscience faithfully. Because Jesus is God, those who move in the direction of God (even non-Christians) are ultimately moving in the direction of Jesus. And if they are moving in the direction of Jesus and His truth, ultimately they are expressing a desire for the salvation that God gives. The Church teaches that, while it is certainly easier to receive salvation as a Christian, it is not impossible to receive salvation in other religions.

This is a challenging situation: on one hand, we must be respectful of the good things to be found in other faiths, and encourage people to live their faiths with sincerity and love. On the other hand, this does not mean that all religions are the same. We believe that Christ is the ultimate revealing of God to the world, and that the more we know about his message, the greater the chance that we will accept his offer and be saved. We must therefore continue to preach the message of the Gospel, and encourage interested non-Catholics to examine the claims of our faith, without in any way coercing or intimidating them. Father Feeney was an American priest who, back in the 1940s, taught that if a person was not a Roman Catholic, they were condemned to hell. This has never been the accepted teaching of Catholicism, and Father Feeney was reprimanded by the Vatican for his mistaken understanding. Nevertheless, there are groups which continue to hold to this strict interpretation, even after the Pope and bishops have specifically rejected it. The phrase "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" teaches us that salvation is only through Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. But God is able to save whomever he pleases, whether they are baptized in the Roman Catholic Church or not. It is important to remember that "the Church" in this phrase does not refer exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church. Salvation is a great gift, and God is a loving Father who wants all of his children to receive it. How he works this out, however, we will only understand in heaven. That is why, whenever we quote "Outside the Church, there is no salvation", we should also remember that "God is in no way bound by the sacraments." Until then, we continue to proclaim Jesus as Lord (evangelization) and engage in respectful dialogue with followers of other religions, to discover the truths that God had revealed to them to guide them toward salvation, and to share with them the truth as we have discovered it in Christ.

http://www.rcec.london.on.ca/MWatsonArchive.htm Salvation outside the Church Q. Dear Father Murray: I often visit a Catholic youth forum online, which has a member who's a follower of Fr. Feeney. She believes that everyone who is not a baptized Catholic will go to hell. Our understanding at the message board, based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that one may enter the Catholic Church through baptism of blood or baptism of desire. She strongly disagrees with this. Everything she says seems to makes sense, but it goes against what the Church teaches on baptism of blood and desire. This debate has been going on for months. Any help in understanding this would be greatly appreciated! T. A. I too have encountered a number of "Feeneyites," and I think you will have little success in trying to debate their positions with them. Many of them are deeply suspicious about the situation of the Church today, and are convinced that only THEY possess the truth of Catholicism, while the rest of us have

fallen into moral and doctrinal error. However, if this person is open to discuss their position, you might present the following information: - the Church's teaching on the possibility of being saved through "baptism of desire" or "baptism of blood" is very ancient, going back to the first 200 years of the Church, when catechumens were often killed in persecutions before they had a chance to be baptized. St. Augustine (one of the great saints and doctors of the early Church) was one of the first to formally propose the idea, which essentially says that, even though baptism is necessary from OUR perspective, it is certainly not necessary from GOD'S perspective. God can save whoever he chooses, and he looks, not merely at the external fact of baptism, but at the person's dispositionsat what is in their hearts. The Church has ALWAYS believed in the "universal salvific will of God"that God intends for all people to be saved, unless they voluntarily exclude themselves from the salvation he offers. If baptism were strictly necessary for salvation, then the majority of the world's inhabitants are condemned to be eternally separated from God. It is very hard to reconcile this possibility with our idea of a kind and compassionate God who wants all people to share eternal happiness in his loving presence! This is not a "modern" idea--it was taught by many of the early Fathers of the Church, and by St. Thomas Aquinas back in the 1200sprobably one of the greatest minds Catholicism has ever known. Although it is important to remember the saying "Outside the Church there is no salvation", there is another saying which completes it, which is often forgotten: "God is not bound by the sacraments." The sacraments exist for OUR benefit, and they do not restrict God's freedom in any way. - the Church believes that God has endowed each human being with a conscience, which urges us to reject sin and choose good. Since God is the Source of all goodness, it is impossible for a human being to do a good action without in SOME way being in relationship with God--it is ultimately God who inspires that good action in the person (James 1:17 "All good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights"). Therefore, any person who does good according to their conscience is acting in response to the prompting of God and is following the law of, even if they aren't consciously aware of it. For those who do not have the opportunity to hear and accept Christ in a specific way, we believe that their conscience can lead them in the direction of God, and that God can use that threadeven if it is very thinto lead them to salvation. - Essentially, it is a much bigger question than the question of salvation. The larger question for the disciples of Father Feeney is their acceptance of the teaching office of the Church. If they teach that the Pope is in error regarding salvation, then they are really saying that the Pope is not really Pope, and they call his entire authority into question, and essentially separate themselves from full communion with him, since they do not accept his teachings (one of the characteristics of a true Catholic). Anyone who does this, no matter how "Catholic" they believe themselves to be, is no longer Catholic. - numerous Popes and Councils have taught a broader interpretation of "beyond the Church there is no salvation" than the Feeneyites accept. For example: - Pope Pius IX, in his encyclical letter Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863): "We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all people, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal

life. For God, who knows completely the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all people, will not permit, in accord with his infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment." - Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949), concerning Father Feeney: "Pope Pius XII, in his doctrinal letter on the mystical Body of Christ mentioned those who 'are ordained to the mystical Body of the Redeemer by some kind of unconscious desire or longing.' He by no means excludes these people from eternal salvation, but on the other hand, he does point out that they are in a condition 'in which they cannot be secure about their salvation...since they lack many gifts and helps from God which they can enjoy only in the Catholic Church'. With these prudent words, the Pope condemns those who exclude from eternal salvation all people who adhere to the Church only with an implicit desire..." - Pope Paul VI in his Credo of the People of God (1968): "We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation. For Christ, who is the sole Mediator and the one way to salvation, makes Himself present for us in His Body which is the Church. But the divine plan of salvation embraces ALL people, and those who, 'without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church but seek God with a sincere heart, and under the influence of grace attempt to do His will as they understand it through the promptings of their conscience,' these too, in a number known only to God, can obtain eternal salvation." Dr. Ludwig Ott, the compiler of a respected major collection of official Church documents called Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (published in 1954), says: "The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (e.g. the baptism by blood of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (baptism of desireSt. Cajetan) or the attainment of the use of reason at the moment of death (baptism of desire) or the suffering and death of the child as a quasi-sacrament, are indeed possible, but their truth cannot be clearly proved from Revelation" (page 114). "St. Ambrose and St. Augustine admit that catechumens who depart this life before the reception of baptism can win salvation on the grounds of their faith, their internal conversion and their desire for baptism ... St. Thomas concedes that the person may be saved extra-sacramentally by baptism of desire and therefore there is possibility of salvation without actual membership in the Church, by reason of one's DESIRE to be a member of the Church." (page 313). What the Feeneyites propose is NOT the traditional faith of the Church, but is merely a harsh interpretation of that faith. With my prayers and blessing for you, and for all of the people you encounter online as you share your faith in the Lord, In the peace of Christ, Father Murray

Outside the Church there is no salvation?? Q Many internet sites claim the Roman Catholic Church believed that "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation". They say Vatican II changed what they beleived, therefore, Vatican II is null and void and the Catholic Church is no longer the Catholic Church. They talk a lot about a priest named Fr. Feeney. Can you enlighten me to exactly what they are talking about and what the Church believes?

Thanks in advance. Michael A. As a former Presbyterian who became Catholic as an adult, I have found this entire discussion to be very interesting, and have read some of the background behind it. What my reading has shown me is that, while individual Catholics have taken this phrase as justification for some tremendous injustices against non-Catholics and non-Christians, the Church has never understood this phrase in the black-and-white way that it initially sounds. This phrase (in Latin, "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" or "Outside the Church there is no salvation") is a very ancient one, going back to the very early days of Christianity. It was originally meant to affirm the necessity of baptism and Christian faith at a time when (a) a number of Christians were being tempted under torture to renounce their faith and deny Christ and (b) large groups of Christians were being led into "pseudo-Christian" cult-type groups, which were actually just a front for pagan philosophy and religion. In response, bishops repeated that, if a person were to be aware of the meaning of Christ and then freely deny him or reject him, they had essentially turned away from God and the salvation he offers. As Christians, we believe that we are saved only through Jesus. As St. Peter reminds his audience in Acts 4:12: "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved." In most cases, this means that we believe baptism in water, in the name of the Trinity, is the fundamental requirement for salvation. However, even from the beginning, the great Christian writer and teacher St. Augustine said that the salvation imparted through baptism can also be imparted through other means: specifically, through the "baptism of blood" (a non-Christian who dies defending Christian beliefs or holy places) and "the baptism of desire" (a non-Christian who has expressed a firm desire to become a Christian, and who shows all the signs of living a Christian life, but who dies before baptism). In both of those cases, the Church has always recognized that the Holy Spirit leads people to God in ways which we cannot always explain or document. God is able to save anyone he chooses. We trust that he often does this is ways that are not obvious to us, within the hearts of individuals who are sincerely seeking the truth. Otherwise, it would imply that all of humanity was excluded from salvation before Christ came, and that much of humanity (which has not had the opportunity to hear the Christian message until recently) was doomed to be eternally separated from God. This would imply a very cruel and elitist God. Our belief as Christians and Catholics is that God desires the salvation of all people even those who are not Christian. How he achieves that, however, is a mystery. But we know that our God is a loving God who would not allow people to suffer on account of an ignorance that they were not responsible for. The Church teaches that baptism, faith, and a life lived in Christ are necessary for salvation. However, Vatican II also taught that, within every human heart, God places the law of conscience. Everybody has a deep sense of right and wrong which ultimately comes from God, and which will lead people to God if they attempt to follow their conscience faithfully. Because Jesus is God, those who move in the direction of God (even non-Christians) are ultimately moving in the direction of Jesus. And if they are moving in the direction of Jesus and His truth, ultimately they are expressing a desire for the salvation that God gives. The Church teaches that, while it is certainly easier to receive salvation as a Christian, it is not impossible to receive salvation in other religions.

This is a challenging situation: on one hand, we must be respectful of the good things to be found in other faiths, and encourage people to live their faiths with sincerity and love. On the other hand, this does not mean that all religions are the same. We believe that Christ is the ultimate revealing of God to the world, and that the more we know about his message, the greater the chance that we will accept his offer and be saved. We must therefore continue to preach the message of the Gospel, and encourage interested non-Catholics to examine the claims of our faith, without in any way coercing or intimidating them. Father Feeney was an American priest who, back in the 1940s, taught that if a person was not a Roman Catholic, they were condemned to hell. This has never been the accepted teaching of Catholicism, and Father Feeney was reprimanded by the Vatican for his mistaken understanding. Nevertheless, there are groups which continue to hold to this strict interpretation, even after the Pope and bishops have specifically rejected it. The phrase "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" teaches us that salvation is only through Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. But God is able to save whomever he pleases, whether they are baptized in the Roman Catholic Church or not. It is important to remember that "the Church" in this phrase does not refer exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church. Salvation is a great gift, and God is a loving Father who wants all of his children to receive it. How he works this out, however, we will only understand in heaven. That is why, whenever we quote "Outside the Church, there is no salvation", we should also remember that "God is in no way bound by the sacraments." Until then, we continue to proclaim Jesus as Lord (evangelization) and engage in respectful dialogue with followers of other religions, to discover the truths that God had revealed to them to guide them toward salvation, and to share with them the truth as we have discovered it in Christ. God bless! Father Murray Note that this subject is addressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Numbers 846-48.

EUCHARIST-REAL PRESENCE
http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/realpres.htm

The Real Presence by David Palm, Copyright 26 June, 1997 (This article first appeared in Immaculata Magazine, April, 1996) I was not raised as a Catholic. In fact, the Christian tradition in which I grew up is, in many ways, at the opposite end of the theological spectrum from Catholicism. We had no liturgy and no sacraments. For us the Eucharist (or Lords Supper as we called it) was purely symbolic. We were adamant that the bread and wine remained bread and wine at the Supper. And this was taught consciously in juxtaposition to the Catholic Churchs teaching that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Its fair to say, by virtue of this contrast to the Catholic Churchs doctrine of the Real Presence, that I was taught to believe a doctrine of Real Absence. Im a committed Catholic now, and the doctrine of the Eucharist played a significant role in identifying the Catholic Church as the Church that Jesus Christ established. A central question that drove me some years ago to reconsider the theology that I had been taught as an evangelical Protestant was, "What is orthodoxy?" Different groups of Christians hold mutually contradictory views on many doctrines, including the Eucharist; its clear that they cant all be right. I was concerned at this disunity and confusion in Bible interpretation. So I began to search for some other means, besides my own all-too-fallible opinions, to determine what was orthodox. In the course of my reading I was exposed to the Catholic Churchs claim to be the Church established by Jesus Christ. I had to find out whether this claim was true. First Stop, the Bible When I was challenged by the Catholic view of the Eucharist my first stop was the Scriptures. My instincts as an evangelical Protestant were immediately to check everything against the Bible. So I began to seriously study the central passages that pertain to the Eucharist. I was moved most by my study of John 6:35-69. Exactly one year before the Last Supper, on the eve of the Passover, Jesus delivered these stunning words to His followers: 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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him (John 6:53-56). Some Christians try to blunt the force of these words. They contend that when Jesus said "eat My flesh" and "drink My blood" he was using a metaphor for faith; eating flesh and drinking blood means putting our faith in Jesus. But I learned that "eating flesh" and "drinking blood" already had an established metaphorical meaning for the ancient Jews. In the Old Testament it meant "to revile" or "to slander" (see Psa 27:2; Zech 11:9), not "to believe." Its symbolic meaning was that of brutal slaughter (Jer 46:10; Ezek 39:17). In ancient Jewish tradition the "eater of flesh" was the Devil himself, "the slanderer and

adversary par excellence" (Raymond Brown, John I-XII. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984, 284). So if Jesus words were to have a figurative meaning He would be saying that they must revile and slander Him in order to have eternal life. For His audience to understand these words as referring to faith is highly problematic. Nor can the command to "eat" the Lords flesh be taken metaphorically. St. John does not only use the normal Greek word for "eat," phagomai, but in verses 54, 56 and 57 uses the word trogo, a very vivid word meaning "to munch, gnaw." My research revealed that while phagomai is sometimes used metaphorically, trogo is never anything but literal in the Greek Bible and all other Greek literature. In John 6:50-58 Jesus says six times that His hearers must eat His flesh and drink His blood. It is clear that His audience understood Him literally; they were scandalized by these words. But the Lord made no move to correct their understanding; rather, He simply reiterated His teaching more strongly. Elsewhere, when the disciples or others wrongly took Him literally, He explained His figurative meaning to them (see, for instance, John 3:1-15 and Matt 16:5-12). In another Gospel passage, we are told that Jesus always explained the true meaning of His hard teachings at least to His own disciples (Mark 4:34). But in this case, He challenged even the Twelve that they could leave if they could not accept this teaching (verse 67). When I had finished my study of John 6 I was rather startled at (and nervous about) the strength of the Catholic position. And it became clear that the other passages of Scripture that deal with the Eucharist present a united picture. For instance, Jesus draws a parallel between the manna in the wilderness and His flesh that He will give us to eat (John 6:49-50). St. Paul makes the same parallel (1 Cor 10:3ff.). Jesus says, "This is My Body . . . This is My Blood" at the Last Supper (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-21). St. Paul says that we partake of One Loaf (1 Cor 10:17), not many loaves as is the case in those Christian groups in which they teach that the bread remains bread. And he says that the one who eats unworthily is "guilty of the body and blood of Christ" (1 Cor 11:27). Second Stop, the Fathers I was now convinced from Scripture that the Catholic view was correct, but my "fate" was sealed when I began to study the views of the earliest Christians on the Eucharist. Ironically, most helpful for me was the research of the emminent Protestant scholar J. N. D. Kelly in his Early Christian Doctrines (2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1960, see esp. pp. 196-8, 211-216, and 440-455). Kelly shows, through citation of the original writings, that Christians believed consistentlyfrom the time of the Apostles onwardin the Real Presence and the Eucharist as the New Covenant sacrifice. For instance, St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, writes around A.D. 106 that "the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised" (Epistle to the Smyrneans 6:2). Kelly observes that, "Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists denial of the reality of Christs body" (Doctrines, 197). St. Ignatius argument would not have been persuasive to his opponents unless belief in the Real Presence was pervasive (even among heretical groups!) by A.D. 106. Justin Martyr writes around A.D. 130 that, We do not receive these as common bread or common drink. But just as our Saviour Jesus Christ was made flesh through the Word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food which has been eucharistized by the word of prayer from Him . . . is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus (First Apology, 66:2).

And St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, writing around A.D. 160, says: He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks and said, This is My body. And the cup likewise, which is part of that creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world. . . . Then again, how can they [Gnostic heretics] say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption and does not partake of life? . . . When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can [the Gnostics] affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him? (Against Heresies, 4:17:5, 4:18:4-5, 5:2:3) Note that here St. Irenaeus supports both the Real Presence and the Eucharistic sacrifice in the same context. And so it is with all the Church Fathers: Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem. I read them and found they all believed in the Real Presence and the Eucharist as the New Covenant sacrifice. Intellectually I was beaten. It was clear that the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist was both biblically correct and the continuous belief of the Church. It was, in a word, orthodox. But did I believe it? How does one move over that hump from intellectual affirmation to heart-felt belief? I wrestled with this question for several weeks. Finally one night, after saying some evening prayers, I reviewed my faith as an Evangelical Christian. "I believe," I said to myself, "in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity. I believe that He created all things in the universe. And I believe in His bodily resurrection from the dead. What is my problem with His Real Presence in the Eucharist?" And suddenly I realized that I had no problem. I believed. It was all uphill from there. Only two Christian groups have believed consistently in the Real Presence through all of Church history; the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. Other considerationsnotably the papacy and unitysteered me away from Eastern Orthodoxy and to the Catholic Church. And as my wife and I plowed through the myriad of other issues that imposed themselves between us and union with the Catholic Churchcontraception, purgatory, confession to a priest, indulgences, Marywe kept coming back to the touchstone of the Real Presence. There was no place else to get the Body and Blood of our Lord. Where else could we go? I have continued to pursue my academic studies of the Eucharist and am ever more fully convinced that the Catholic Churchs teaching is the teaching passed on by Jesus Christ to His apostles. It is emminently defensible. But it has also become deeply personal, a central facet of my Christian life. Union with our Lord in the Holy Eucharist brings me peace and joy beyond anything I have had in my life before. And I have experienced His Presence in powerful ways. One evening after meeting with my spiritual director I went to pray in a small chapel where the Blessed Sacrament was reserved. All alone, I prostrated myself before the Lord and praised Him for His goodness and grace. His Presence filled the room; I was bathed in His love and a tremendous calm, joy, and love for my Savior filled my soul. I knelt there crying quietly for many minutes; I literally never wanted to leave that room. It was for me a small foretaste of Heaven, the tremendous embrace of infinite Love that waits for us all after this life. That is what the Eucharist brings to us; the precious gift of the Lords own Presence. And this is according to His promise: "And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matt 28:20).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/trogo.html

John 6:54-55, and the Meaning of the Verb to Eat Flesh By Robert Sungenis

The word used in John 6:54, 56-58, when Jesus says to eat his flesh and drink his blood is an important matter to consider when doing exegesis of the passage. The word to eat, trogo, means to gnaw, crunch, so showing the physical reality, and showing the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is too obvious for some, and even Protestant dictionaries have to try to explain away the meaning of this. Here Robert Sungenis responds to an email from someone who asks him a question on the meaning of the word to eat flesh (trogo.) The Protestants Vines Dictionary attempts to give a figurative meaning to the expression of eating flesh (p. 192), and Bob Sungenis responds to this attempt. In Green is the email from the person asking the question, and later, quotes from Vines dictionary. In Blue is Sungenis analysis. My question is: In checking Vine's Dictionary for "trogo" it says that it is used "metaphorically of the habit of spiritually feeding upon Christ", which is clearly the Protestant definition. It goes on to say "The use of 'trogo' in Mat.24:38 and John13:18 is a witness against pressing into the meaning of the word the sense of munching or gnawing; it had largely lost this sense in its common usage." How do I answer this above statement? Here are some excerpts from an article I am writing titled: "The trogo' Experience of Contemplative Munching First, Vines' Expository Dictionary is a Protestant work that is biased against Catholic doctrine. Even the three volume Dictionary of New Testament Theology (editor Colin Brown) is a biased work, especially in regards to the words used in John 6. A better resource is a Greek lexicon, like Walter Bauer, Liddell and Scott, Moulton-Milligan, or Reinecher. Here is what Vine says of "trogo": (I will make comments intermittently) "Primarily, to gnaw, to chew, stresses the slow process; it is used metaphorically of the habit of spiritually feeding upon Christ, John 6:54,56,57,58 (the aorists here do not indicate a definite act, but view a series of acts seen in perspective); Comment: First of all, the "trogo" verbs in John 6:54-58 (pronounced "troogoon;" the double o signifying the long-sounding Greek omega), are all in the present participle form, not aorist, so Vine's comment here is irrelevant. The only aorist is "phagete" in John 6:53, but that is a subjunctive in a conditional clause, which would not support Vine's point. Second, notice how Vine first admits to the very literal usage of "trogo" as "to chew," even stressing the "slow process" of chewing, but then, out of nowhere, injects the conclusion that "trogo" is used "metaphorically" of "spiritual feeding" in John 6. He does not give any grammatical or historical rationale for his abrupt shift in meaning, rather, he is forced to this conclusion by his Protestant bias.

He continues: "of the constant custom of eating in certain company, John 13:18; of a practice unduly engrossing the world, Matt. 24:38." Comment: Vine is picking out one dimension of the use of "trogo" in these verses, but ignoring the other dimensions. It is the combination of these two dimensions which gives "trogo" its special meaning. I will elaborate on this in my latter paragraphs. "In John 6, the change in the Lord's use from the verb esthio (phago) to the stronger verb trogo is noticeable. Comment: At least he does recognize that the switch from phago to trogo is "noticeable." We'll have to thank him for taking "notice," reluctant he may be in doing so. "The more persistent the unbelief of His hearers, the more difficult His language and statements became. In vv. 49 to 53 the verb phago is used; in 54, 58 trogo (in ver. 58 it is put into immediate contrast with phago)." Comment: Of course, Vine's reason for Jesus making his language "more difficult" is that "trogo" is used spiritually while "phago," as noted in his previous explanation above and in his description of "phago" in his dictionary, is used physically. But what he misses is that "phago" is used quite often in the spiritual sense in the New Testament (see below), and is even used on par with "trogo" in John 6:53-54. So if Vine's argument is that "trogo" is "more difficult" than "phago" because "trogo" is spiritual and "phago" is physical (e.g., as "phago" is used physically to recount the giving of manna to the OT Jews in John 6:49), this cannot be possible, since "phago" must also, due its presence in John 6:53 as a lead in to "trogo" in John 6:54, be used in Vine's "spiritual" sense. Vine cannot object to our critique of his view because he has already committed to viewing John 6:54-58 as metaphorical and spiritual, which also commits him to seeing "phago" in John 6:53 as metaphorical and spiritual. But if Vine were to claim that both "phago" and "trogo" are being used spiritually in John 6:53- 54, then he would have no basis for saying, as he earlier did, that the use of "trogo" is "more difficult" than "phago," since both words would then be on an equal spiritual plane and point to the same spiritual idea that the bread is not Jesus but merely a symbol of Jesus. Spiritually speaking, "trogo" could not be "more difficult" than "phago." "Chewing spiritually" cannot be any more difficult than "eating spiritually," since both point to the same spiritual reality. The "more difficult" nature of "trogo" in contrast to "phago" can only be in the PHYSICAL realm of meaning, that is, "phago" refers to "physical eating" but "trogo" refers to "intense physical eating." This is confirmed by the fact that the Jews, according to John 6:52, understood "phago" as referring to physical eating, not spiritual eating. Mr. Vine is trapped, but he doesn't realize it. "The use of trogo in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18 is a witness against pressing into meaning of the word the sense of munching or gnawing; it had largely lost this sense in its common usage." Comment: The assertion that "it had largely lost this sense in its common usage" is mere conjecture based on his wish to dispense with the Catholic usage of "trogo" in John 6. There is absolutely no evidence for Vine's claim in either koine or classical literature. What Vine misses is that "trogo" connoted more than "munching" or "chewing," but a special kind of munching or chewing, which I will explain below. Here is some additional information:

Contrary to Vine, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in either koine or classical Greek. "trogo" (= "I eat," present indicative) is used six times in various verb forms in the New Testament: Matt. 24:38 John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 John 13:18 As a preliminary matter, the main issue is not whether "trogo" can refer to something other than munching or chewing, but whether "trogo" is ever used in a non-physical sense. The meaning in the above passages concerns only the physical act of eating, which distinguishes the meaning from being merely symbolic, as is true of its counterpart "phago" which is sometimes used symbolically (cf., John 4:32; 1 Cor. 10:3). In fact, there is no symbolic usage of "trogo" in the New Testament or in classical literature, and "trogo" is not used in the LXX. In classical literature, according to Liddell and Scott, "trogo" referred mainly to biting into a piece of fruit or vegetable and eating it. Of the two, "phago" is the more general, since it can refer to physical or spiritual eating, but there are other reasons I will state below. Vine tries to turn "trogo" in Matt 24:38 and John 13:18 into metaphors by claiming that the physical eating is merely representative of the social scene, but this is illegitimate, since that is not how a true metaphor is defined. The ante-deluvian people were literally "eating and drinking, and marrying and giving in marriage" right up until Noah entered the ark, since the ark door was shut on the very day it started raining; and Judas did share an intimate meal with Jesus right before he betrayed him. In fact, as I will show below, the social context of Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18 is only made possible by the fact that "trogo" is taken in its literal sense. "Phago" and "trogo," when used in the physical sense, can be used interchangeably. For example, in John 6:53-54 Jesus says, "Except you eat ("phagete" - aorist, subjunctive) the flesh of the Son of Man....He that eats ("trogon" - present, participle) my flesh." Likewise, Jesus uses "phago" in Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; when he says, "Take, eat, This is my body." Another interchange is in John 6:58: "Not as your fathers ate ("ephagon" - aorist, indicative) the manna and died. He that eats (" trogon " - present, participle) this bread shall live forever." Notice that "phago" in John 6:58 is understood in the physical sense, which would also point to its being used physically in John 6:53. This is so because "phago," used in both John 6:49 and 6:58 when Jesus is speaking of the Jews eating manna in the desert, is sandwiching John 6:53 which uses "phago" in reference to eating Jesus. It would be grammatically incongruous for Jesus to switch from a physical meaning in verse 49, to a spiritual meaning in verse 53, and back to a physical meaning in verse 58. Notice also that "trogon" in John 6:54 and 6:58 is a present participle, which refers to an ongoing eating, whereas the aorist indicative of "phago" in 6:58, which describes the eating of the manna, refers to a past, discontinued event. In fact, all the uses of "trogo" in John 6 are present participles, which means that the eating of Jesus must be continual. All in all, "trogo" carries the meaning not just of "chewing" or "munching" but also of "intimate, sustained, eating and total consumation," as opposed to "phago" which is usually only a general reference to eating without further description. One way to distinguish the two, using our everyday language, is to say "phago" refers to "eating for essential nourishment," while "trogo" refers more to "dining, with the express purpose of masticating all the food so that one can savor it," as when we go to a fine restaurant to eat our favorite meal, perhaps making groans of pleasure as we eat. This puts a little distance from defining "trogo" as mere "chewing" or "munching," since animals do the same kind of chewing but without being cognizant of a fine gourmet meal shared with another.

Thus, Jesus can use "phago" in John 6:53 when he is referring to the Eucharist, since "phago" refers to "essential nourishment," which is true of the Eucharist it leaves us with God's grace. In fact, Jesus completes John 6:53 with "unless you eat (phagete) the flesh of the Son of Man....you have NO LIFE IN YOU," showing a lack of nourishment (sanctifying grace) if one refuses to eat. But in the next verses, John 6:54-55, Jesus says, "Whoever eats (trogon) my flesh...has eternal life...for my flesh is REAL food" (Greek: aleethos = truly, really). Notice that now the emphasis is on "REAL" food. In other words, Jesus is saying, "Look, I'm not kidding when I say I, personally, am food for you [as he just intimated in John 6:53]. In fact, I am so REAL that you will actually have to chew me [trogon me] as you would dine at a meal." This distinction between "phago" and "trogo" wherein the latter refers more to intimate dining, would also explain why John 13:18 and Matt. 24:38 can opt to use "trogo" instead of "phago." John 13:18 uses "trogo" as a translation for the Hebrew "akal" in Psalm 41:9. "Akal" is the normal Hebrew word for "eat," being used in various forms about 800 times in the OT. But the Jews did not have a specific word for "chew" or "gnaw," which is probably why the LXX (Septuagint) never translated "akal," or the other Hebrew words for "eat" such as "barah," "lacham," "raah," "team," or "okel," into the Greek word "trogo." The Greeks had a word for everything. John 13:18 is the scene in which Judas is betraying Jesus after sharing a most intimate meal with him. The horror of the betrayal is made even more severe by its stark contrast to the intimacy of dining together. Colloquially, Jesus would be saying, "The one with whom I shared a most intimate meal, is the very one who will betray me." This is why some translations render John 13:18 as "He who SHARES MY BREAD has lifted up his heel against me" (NIV). Although it would still be possible to use "phago" in John 13:18, "trogo" puts more emphasis on the intimacy of dining together. In Matthew 24:38, we have almost the same picture. The scene is of an intimate wedding in which people are eating and drinking, oblivious of the coming deluge of Noah's flood. The use of "trogo" here portrays an intimate, sumptuous meal, which is common at weddings and which occupies the guests time and interest. In fact, much of the ceremony/celebration revolves around the food and drink, as was the case in the marriage feast of Cana in John 2. Matthew is trying to draw our attention to the act of enthusiastic dining among the guests, which in turn shows us why the guests are oblivious to their coming misfortune. It is also significant that there is not another instance in the New Testament in which "eating and drinking" is coupled with "marrying and giving in marriage," which shows that the intensity or emphasis afforded by "trogo" allows it to be uniquely coupled with an intimate marriage celebration. Hence, in using "trogo" in John 6:54-58, Jesus is not merely saying that the Jews must "chew" him (like animals chewing a cud, or like humans taking a vitamin pill), but that they must chew as if they were dining at a fine meal of celebration, savoring every bite of him, thinking about the food as they eat it. This is why the Jews are upset at Jesus -- not only because he is telling them to eat him (phago, which, admittedly, could have been interpreted either physically or spiritually), but because he is treating himself, without equivocation, as if he were an intimate dining experience, which was indeed the nature of the Eucharist at the Last Supper and continues to be in the Mass. The Jews are no longer to eat like their ancestors who consumed manna in the desert merely to fill their stomachs, and who even complained that they didn't like the taste of the manna. No, the food that Jesus will give is a savory meal which one must intimately chew, taste and enjoy. We do this by contemplating who we are eating God himself. Colloquially speaking, it is gourmet food that must be chewed and savored; you must really know what you are consuming, which starts by literally sinking your teeth into it. Since chewing connotes the idea of getting into the inner essence of the object, "trogo" is the most intimate and specific word afforded in the Greek language to get this point across that God himself wishes to become a

physical part of every part of our being. We can thus enjoy a "trogo experience" when we receive the Eucharist, literally savoring the presence of God in our mouth and then contemplating him permeating our entire body and filling us with his grace. Wow, what a rush!! Robert Sungenis

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/gathering/ismeucharist.html On the Real Presence by I. Shawn McElhinney Part I - Introduction Part II - Addressing Protestant Text Criticism of John 6 Part III - The Real Presence Among the Church Fathers Part IV - Addressing Some Protestant Presuppositions Part V - Dichotomies and Antiquity Part VI - Final Notes Part I - Introduction All too often in the Protestant philosophy, truth involves a head count of scholars. Since the very nature of truth is not one of change at the whim of the majority opinion; logically truth cannot be determined in this manner. That truth is not subject to change is at the very core of the words of St. Paul in Galatians 1:8-9: "If we or an angel from heaven preach to you a Gospel other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema, I said it before and I say it again, if anyone preaches to you a Gospel other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." This would be a meaningless statement if the doctrinal truths, which Paul had preached initially, were capable of being changed or "modified" with the times. Notice also that there is no time limit on this condemnation, which indicates that it is still in force. Anathema means accursed. Therefore, Paul is condemning with a curse those who teach differently than the Gospel taught by the Apostles be it an angel from heaven, an Apostle, etc: it did not matter. Is not this very concept at the heart of the disagreements between Christians though??? The most glaring differences are between Protestants and Apostolic Christians (Catholics and Eastern Churches although the Anglicans are more in the camp of the Apostolic Churches than Protestants in many ways). The heart of the dispute is that each believes the other to be wrong and this error cannot be seen as a slight one. In the case of the Eucharist you have among the most serious of divides in Christendom because rather than a difference in degree you have a case of diametric opposites in looking at this issue. Apostolic Churches believe that the Eucharist is the actual flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Protestants claim that this is false. Anglicans and Lutherans from the Protestant side also believe in some form of Our Lord's Real Presence in the Eucharist so in this case side with the Historic Churches. The general position of the Protestant churches is to claim that this belief is "unbiblical." Despite possible appearances otherwise, this is not a minor matter because one side is in serious error and both sides cannot be right (that would violate the Law of Non Contradiction). Which side then is the "biblical" side and which side is the "unbiblical side"??? That is the purpose of this essay: to seek to shed some light on answering that very question.

I will endeavour to show in this essay from a biblical, logical, grammatical, and historical standpoint that the doctrine of the Real Presence as understood by Catholics, the Eastern Churches, Anglicans, and Lutherans is the only correct position. In doing this I will by default be proving that the Evangelical-Reformed position is clearly and without question a position condemned under the aforementioned anathema of St. Paul). This was the only position ever held in the Church from the time of the Apostles up until the 11th century and from there was still the overwhelming position throughout Christendom until the 16th century. I will start with John 6 and show that not only can John 6 only be interpreted literally in the primary sense (not to say that there are not metaphorical secondary interpretations of course) but at bottom this is the most literal passage in the entire Bible. I will also seek to show (to a limited extent) a consent from antiquity for the literal understanding of the Real Presence and challenge any Protestant to provide ANY evidence prior to the 16th century countenancing another position that was held by those recognized as orthodox among the Fathers and Scholastics. Some Protestant apologists claim that not all the Fathers took a literal view of the Real Presence. This view is without the slightest shred of doubt a historically untenable one. I will seek to address errors common to Protestant presuppositions when it comes to reading the Fathers writings, and also the flawed dichotomous mindset that impairs many Protestants from being honest with what the records of history reveal to us. I will also cover to a limited extent the inability oftentimes of Protestants to let the Bible say what it really says. I will finish up by going over the lack of historical verification for the Evangelical-Reformed-Fundamentalist views. In the process I will explain not only the difference between "transubstantiation" and "consubstantiation" but why these terms (arising in the 11th 12th century as they did) are irrelevant when it comes to the doctrine of the Real Presence as it existed in the early Church. First though, a bit of groundwork needs to be put in place in discussing methods of interpretation so we will begin with a thorough examination of John 6. Part II - Addressing Protestant Text Criticism of John 6 It is a general rule (though not an absolute one) that if a certain passage or statement is repeated three or more times in Scripture, that this is an indication to take it literally (unless there is a reasonable reason not to). What would be a "reasonable" reason not to??? For starters, any interpretation that has a consensus in historical exegesis (or at least overwhelming/dominant support) can be considered a "reasonable" interpretation. Any interpretation that cannot show a degree of consensus in early belief could logically be dismissed as an "unreasonable" interpretation if it differs markedly from those that proceeded it (Gal. 1:8-9). Modes of speaking like Hebraic idiom whereby a statement is repeated twice in succession (Amen Amen by Our Lord for example) generally indicates that a certain statement is an important statement. If you have a message stated two or three times in a slightly different manner (1 Corinthians 6:11 for example) this also lends itself to a greater likelihood that it is to be taken in a literal manner either in content or in message being conveyed. These are just a few of the important elements that go into the proper understanding of the time period, modes, customs, languages, types of literature, assumptions, etc. germane to the time of composition and to the mindset of the initial target audience to insure the greatest accuracy in proper exegesis. Although Protestants are usually considered to be more "biblically based" than Catholics, in reality it is the converse that is true and nowhere is this more evident than in the case of John 6. In general though, (when it comes to literal Biblical exegesis), it is almost always the Catholics who take the words of Our Lord in the Gospels literally when engaged in a doctrinal disputes with Protestants. The latter tend towards convoluted and legalistic interpretations that are alien to the Hebrew world-view from which the Scriptures were written. What I have discovered when discussing these matters with Protestants is that they often interpret the

literal words of Our Lord in light of St. Paul (especially with regard to the Romans and Galatians epistles). On the other hand, Catholics interpret the words of St. Paul, St. Peter, and other writers of the epistles in light of the literal Word of Our Lord Himself. In John 6, all of the previously mentioned characteristics are present (repetition, Hebraic idiom, etc.) so the proper interpretation should be easy (even if what is being said is difficult to comprehend). As will be demonstrated in this essay, among the prevalent Apostolic interpretations of John 6 is a reference to the Eucharist. It also cannot be shown that the position of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches. (A view also held by Anglicans and to some extent Lutherans). This position on the Eucharist is that it is the literal flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ (in sacramental form): a view that lacked any significant dissent an entire millennium after Pentecost. Let us look at John 6 and the underlying Greek grammar for a greater understanding of this passage. "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever." (John 6:51-58, RSV) There are 8 explicit references to eating the flesh of Our Lord made by Him in the above 7 verses and the response from the crowd is incredulity (which is perfectly understandable). Can anyone find any other passage in the entire Bible where there is so much repetition on a single point??? Let us look at the underlying structure of the Greek words behind the statement for a better understanding of the passage: From the actual words used the literal rendering makes the most sense. Our Lord uses the realistic expressions that His flesh is REAL FOOD and His blood is REAL DRINK. The Greek word ajlhqhv) (transliterated alethes) is used in v.55 and it is defined as follows: Phonetic Spelling al-ay-thace' Definition 1.true 2.loving the truth, speaking the truth, truthful The King James translates this word as "indeed" John 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed (KJV) So a literal rendering of Our Lord's flesh being "food indeed" and his blood being "drink indeed" is the definition that takes primacy of position; therefore it must be held unless a rock solid reason can be shown otherwise. Besides, there is no definition of alethes that implies anything but the truth in some form. This is not consistent with taking the statement figuratively at all. It never ceases to amaze me how many self-proclaimed literalists all of a sudden become very allegorical when this passage is discussed. The use of the word alethes is not consistent with an allegorical interpretation at all.

The Greek words for EAT also bear noting since they are important for a proper exegesis of this passage. The two words of note are "phago" and "trogo." According to my KJV lexicon, the meanings of these words are as follows: (v. 49-53) is phago: Favgomai (transliterated as phago) Phonetic Spelling - fag'-o Parts of Speech - Verb Definition 1.to eat 2.to eat (consume) a thing a.to take food, eat a meal b.metaph. to devour, consume Here are the relevant passages from the Gospel of John where this word is used: John 4:31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. John 4:32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. John 4:33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? John 6:5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? John 6:23 (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks:) John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. John 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. John 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. John 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. Would anyone claim that phago in any of these uses is not a literal eating as opposed to a metaphorical "consumption"??? Remember of the 2 definitions of phago, the first means to eat as in "I ate lunch" and

the second means "to consume" with the first sub definition (a) being a literal eating of food. Only the second sub definition (b) means to metaphorically consume something. Recognizing that the primary definitions must always be presumed in all cases except where they can be shown to obviously not be the case, we proceed to the verses of controversy between historic sacramental Christianity and anti-historical, anti-sacramental Christianity. Here are the verses in dispute: John 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Now why should we immediately not take the literal meaning of phago here??? What sort of rationale does the opponent of such a rendering give??? Would it be the same indignation of the Jews in the same situation by chance??? Observe how Our Lord responds to their objections and ask yourself if this is the response of someone who intends a metaphorical meaning of his words to be conveyed: John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. John 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever. The word for eat in the above passages is not phago but instead is trogo. Here is what my KJV Greek Lexicon says about trogo and its different meanings: (v. 54, 56-58) is trogo: Trwvgw (transliterated as trogo) Phonetic Spelling - tro'-go Parts of Speech - Verb Definition 1.to gnaw, crunch, chew

a.of animals feeding b.of men 2.to eat Notice how none of these definitions is metaphorical at all but they are literal renderings!!! The primary definition is to crunch or chew which is about as literal as you can get. From the actions of the Jews after Our Lord spoke the passages in John 6:54-58, I think we can determine what the intended meaning was and it was clearly the primary definition. Otherwise the reactions of the crowd do not make sense. Other NT usages of trogo are as follows: Matt. 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. From these passages it can be deduced that John 6 can only be understood literally. The following points underscore this assessment: POINT 1: The Jews understood Our Lord to be speaking literally. POINT 2: His disciples, and even the Apostles themselves understood Our Lord to be speaking literally. POINT 3: Despite their incredulity, Jesus keeps emphasizing it without ever telling them that he was speaking figuratively. If a non-literal meaning was intended, it would be illogical to keep re-emphasizing it with greater force throughout the discourse as Our Lord did. Even the change in verbs from phago (which generally means to eat literally) is later replaced with trogo which is a much more explicit verb and denotes a gnawing or crunching which would only make sense if it was emphasizing a literal meaning. Otherwise, Our Lord the greatest teacher this world has ever and will ever know really blew it big time here in explaining Himself clearly and unambiguously. POINT 4: The crowds left Our Lord and he never corrected their misunderstanding if it was a misunderstanding (as he did in every instance where his parables were misunderstood). Therefore it must not have been a misunderstanding except in terms of HOW Our Lord would give them His flesh to eat as "food indeed." POINT 5: The setting of the scene casts some interesting characteristics that favour a literal reading also. One short but significant verse at the very beginning of the chapter highlights the setting and circumstances and bears noting here: John 6:4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews was near. Now in light of this passage we should consider what happened at Passover in those days. At every Passover, the Jews ate a lamb without blemish not in a figurative manner but in a real literal sense. Why is this significant??? Consider the reference to Our Lord by John the Baptist earlier in the same Gospel of John:

John 1:35 Again the next day John was standing there, and two of his disciples. John 1:36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked by, he said, "Behold the lamb of God!!!" John 1:37 And the two disciples heard him speak and they followed Jesus. Interesting that John makes note of these extra events and for what purpose??? If Jesus is the Lamb of God (as Catholics say at every Mass) than the Passover imagery in John 6:4 has to imply something significant or else it would not be there. It seems to evoke a bit of foreshadowing in 6:4 for what would come later on in that chapter (the discourse on the Eucharist) does it not??? We know that the Jews ate the lamb without blemish at Passover. Could it not logically be inferred based on all of the grammar analysis above that the sinless Son of God, the Lamb of God without blemish would also be eaten literally in a New Covenant Passover??? Taken alone without the above supporting evidence you may be able to state that I am engaging in "exegesis gymnastics" certainly. With all of the supporting evidence I have listed above pointing clearly and unambiguously to a literal interpretation of John 6 (including the fact that Our Lord emphasized 9 times that HE would have to be eaten: find any other passage so clearly attested to in all of Scripture), how can anyone honestly hold to a "metaphorical rendering" after considering all of the evidence that clearly points to the opposite interpretation??? How can my interpretation be seen as anything but a rational one (or at least as "rational" as the incomprehensible mysteries of God can be to us feeble-minded mortals) and the "metaphorical" interpretation taken by most Protestants not be seen as not only "illogical" but also patently unbiblical??? POINT 6: Not one Church Father in the first 1,000 years understood this passage in a purely figurative manner. Some Fathers like Origin, and Augustine entertained a symbolic interpretation to coincide with the literal rendering. However, none of them is on record as not believing in a literal Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist and all of them speak of the Eucharist as Our Lord's literal body on more than one occasion in very clear unambiguous terms. This factor will be examined more in detail in part 3 of this essay but first a challenge that I make to anyone who still has any doubts whatsoever as to the literal rendering of John 6 as Catholics and all Apostolic Christians believe: A CHALLENGE FOR SKEPTICS: Find for me please one other example in the Gospels where Jesus did not explain a difficulty at least to his Apostles. He did not do this in John 6 at all, which underscores the strong evidence that the literal understanding held by everyone at the discourse is the correct one. As I will show in the next section, the evidence in favour of a literal reading from a text standpoint (much as the grammar standpoint already covered) is overwhelmingly positive. Addressing a "Text Critic" on John 6: I find it very interesting that there are those who ignore the witness of history and instead think that text criticism is how you uncover the meaning of a term. I personally believe that the skepticism that goes into such endeavours is an pale and mutually destructive attempt to hide from the obvious so I seldom employ the method myself. However, there are times when a "scholarly" type attempts to bring this method out and thus abandon all other means of ascertaining the truth on a doctrine or a Scriptural interpretation. Such a view is ignorant because it acknowledges (albeit implicitly) that early Church consensus on a doctrine is not the working of the Holy Spirit as promised in John 16:13 but instead is erroneous. This belief in essence makes the words of Our Lord in promising both His guidance unto the consummation of the world (Matt. 28:20) and also the dwelling of the Holy Spirit forever (John 14:16-18; 16:13) to be meaningless. I had an exchange with a Protestant (in early October of 1999) on

text criticism who made the following statement in arguing against a literal rendering of John 6 (after I had shown him reams of Patristic evidence refuting his symbolic or metaphorical view): "Shawn's handling of my point on the Greek is weak. Again, we are thrown assertions with no citations. My point here remains, why does John employ sarx and not soma???" He of course failed to address any of the evidence I brought out to substantiate my view but instead quoted from modern text scholars (as if there are no polemical text scholars out there). Nevertheless, he made an interesting statement but does it prove his case (that John 6 is figurative and not literal based on the word sarx???). I have already explained that the Greek word phago used in v. 49-53 means to eat and generally is a literal verb. Also, alethes in v.55 means "actual" and the Greek word trogo used in v.54, 56-58 translated as "eat" means literally "to gnaw, crunch, or chew" which is a much more literal and forceful verb than phago and one that Our Lord reverts to using when his audience is incredulous at his use of phago ("how can this man give us his flesh to eat"???). These are hardly figurative words being used at all but in the interest of fairness, I pulled out my KJV Greek lexicon (lest I be accused of using one with "Catholic bias") and examined the meaning of the Greek words soma and sarx. Here is what I discovered: According to my Greek lexicon, soma is defined as follows: Sw'ma (transliterated as soma) Phonetic Spelling so'-mah Noun Neuter Definition 1.the body both of men or animals a.a dead body or corpse b.the living body 1.of animals 2.the bodies of planets and of stars (heavenly bodies) 3.is used of a (large or small) number of men closely united into one society, or family as it were; a social, ethical, mystical body a.so in the NT of the church 4.that which casts a shadow as distinguished from the shadow itself Believe it or not, this text critic made my case for me all by himself before I even said a word in reply!!! The reason soma was not used is because it would refer to Our Lord's body as the very flesh He was wearing at the very moment he was speaking to the crowd (if you use the only applicable definition which is 1b).

So it is obvious that soma was not used (he even admitted this much). But is the use of sarx really an argument against a literal rendering of John 6??? According to my Greek lexicon, sarx is defined as follows: Savarx (transliterated as sarx) Savarx (sarx) is a noun of feminine gender. It appears a number of times in the NT (12 times in the Gospel of John and 7 times in John 6 alone). The times listed in John 6 are as follows: John 6: 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 63. The definitions of savarx (or sarx) are as follows: 1.flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts Exactly what the Jews referred to when they were incredulous was it not??? (How can this man give us his FLESH to eat???). Funny how Jesus kept saying exactly the same thing and they still took his words literally. Or maybe it is not so amusing but is instead is something very serious. 2.the body a.the body of a man b.used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship 1.born of natural generation c.the sensuous nature of man, "the animal nature" 1.without any suggestion of depravity 2.the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin 3.the physical nature of man as subject to suffering Perhaps as in "this IS my body" for the definition of 2a??? 2b also indirectly affirms a literal interpretation. 2c is the arguable definition of 6:63 in that the Jews were too carnally minded to comprehend how the literal words of Jesus could be possibly understood in the spiritual (yet real) sense that He intended. 3. a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast This one does not apply to either position but if it did, the support would be literal since living creatures are literal and not metaphorical. 4.the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God This is a possible argument for John 6:63 but is in no way an argument favouring the Evangelical

position in the slightest (as I will address further down). In fact, not one definition of sarx can be said to support a figurative interpretation except maybe (with some serious stretching) 2c or 2c2. Then the argument of primacy of definition comes to the forefront then and there is no good reason whatsoever (after looking at everything presented thus far) to reject the literal interpretation of the passage. Now for the 7 uses of sarx within John 6: John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is MY FLESH, which I will give for the life of the world. John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us HIS FLESH to eat? John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. John 6:54 Whoso eateth MY FLESH, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:55 For MY FLESH is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. John 6:56 He that eateth MY FLESH, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Can it possibly get any clearer than this when you consider the meanings of the underlying verbs phago and trogo (to literally eat: trogo does not have a definition that indicates a figurative meaning) and alethes (true, real)??? The very lexicon definitions definitively refute the primary Protestant Evangelical position in every usage including the following one. John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; THE FLESH profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Can one example in all of Scripture be produced where "spirit" is synonymous with "symbolic"??? (I will save you the effort because it cannot be done). Therefore, 6:63 in no way is contrary to a literal rendering of the previous 6 examples (which the first two definitions of savarx support as I have shown). Besides, will an Evangelical claim that Our Lord's flesh profited nothing??? If they did than the entire Incarnation and Passion/Death of Our Saviour for the redemption of mankind was in vain!!! Therefore, there is no way that John 6:63 can possibly render the rest of the discourse in a metaphorical way especially considering all of the foundational evidence already supplied that points to a literal interpretation without exception. I highlighted the 7 examples and if you look carefully, the first 6 refer to the flesh of Our Lord and the one on John 6:63 is differentiating between THE spirit and THE flesh which is not the same context as the prior 6 passages. John 6:63 is Our Lord telling the Jews that they were thinking too carnally and not spiritually enough. He would not hack off His limbs and feed them the flesh He was wearing at that moment and in that form. No, he would feed them spiritually His very flesh and blood in the form of a sacramentum (mystery) which He promulgated at the Last Supper. Their error was not in misunderstanding what He said but instead how He would do what He said He would do. Any other interpretation involves seeking to explain away Our Lords literal words, which one should never do except as an absolute last resort. And in the Bible there is seldom ever a need for such a last resort yet it is so often the first one that Protestants go to in defending the systematic theologies of their founders

from being contradicted by the literal words of Scripture (most notably the Gospels). Let us look at the other examples of savarx from the NT okay??? Just the Gospels, Acts, and the other writings of John though because that will be enough to make my case. There are 33 uses of the word sarx in the Gospels, Acts, and the other writings of the Evangelist John (including 5 non-John 6 uses in Johns Gospel). Let us address them now starting with the Gospel of John: John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Is this "metaphorical" flesh??? John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Was Jesus' flesh "metaphorical" or "symbolic" here??? John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. John 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. Do these usages imply a metaphorical or symbolic flesh??? I do not think so. Matt. 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Is Peters flesh not literal flesh??? Matt. 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh The one flesh here can in some ways be said to be metaphorical. However, the marital embrace does at times involve conception of a child which IS human after all. So I'd say that this is a literal rendering as well in that light. Matt 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Same as the previous comment. Matt 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Who would claim that these are anything but literal renderings of "sarx"??? Mark 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. Mark 13:20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the

elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. Mark 14:38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. These verses are duplicates of the ones from Matthews Gospel. Thus far, EVERY usage of sarx in the Gospels supports a literal interpretation. Luke 3:6 And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Surely no one would claim that these verses are "metaphorical" because they obviously are not. Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: Acts 2:26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. None of the uses in Acts supports the common Protestant interpretation of sarx either. To briefly recap the uses of "sarx" in the Gospels and Acts: Matthew - 5 usages and all 5 are literal Mark - 3 usages and all 3 are literal Luke - 2 usages and both are literal> Acts - 4 usages and all 4 are literal John - 12 usages and the 5 outside of John 6 are literal. Since EVERY example in the Gospels and Acts ouside of John 6 is literal, then it makes sense to read John 6 literally also. To do otherwise is purely arbitrary on the part of the interpreter. If such a pattern also surfaces in John's epistles than that how can anyone logically conclude that the uses in John 6 are metaphorical???: 1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. Sarx is used to emphasize literal flesh here.

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: Again, Jesus did come in the literal flesh right??? 1 Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. If this is taken metaphorically than it refutes the Incarnation. Obviously it is a literal intent then. 2 Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Same comments as for 1 John 4:3. Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. In line with the OT figurative usages of "eat my flesh" (see Deut 28:53ff; 32:42; 2 Sam 23:17; Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:18- 20; 49:26; Ezek 5:10ff; Bar 2:3; Micah 3:1-4) these speak of assaulting or reviling someone. So if "eating my flesh" is figurative in John 6 than as in Revelation and the list of other OT references, the meaning would be to "assault" or to "revile" Our Lord in order to gain eternal life. This meaning would claim that to gain eternal life we must repudiate Our Lord. Such a view makes no sense and therefore it must be false. Summary of Part II: The interpretive concept of repetition and solemnity (Amen amen translated as "verily verily" in v.53) and the principle of repetition (over 7 and arguably 9 times between v.48 and v.58) commands a literal interpretation of this or no part of the Bible does. Althes in v. 55 means "actual" which supports a literal rendering of John 6 and not a figurative or symbolic one. "My flesh is actual food indeed and my blood is actual drink indeed" is hardly the statement of someone making a parabolic statement unless they are a lousy teacher and Our Lord was the best of teachers. Phago (in v. 49-53) is almost always used literally which lends further evidence to taking Our Lord at His word when he refers to eating his flesh in these verses. Trogo in v. 54, 56-58 means "to gnaw or chew" which refutes a figurative or symbolic rendering of John 6 and places a heavy emphasis on a literal interpretation because it is not a verb used in a non-literal sense anywhere in the New Testament. Therefore, why should it be applied that way here except to

defend Protestant systematic theology of course: Our Lords literal words anathematize the Protestant position so frequently that there are Protestants who try to dismiss Our Lords words as belonging to a "previous dispensation" to focus on Pauls writings. In short the Gospels are not actually in the Gospels according to them. And these kinds of people have the temerity to call themselves "Bible Christians!!!" A "Bible Christian" recognizes that when Our Lord says something it is to be taken literally almost all the time. Any other view makes the Gospel subortinate to the whims of mere men. On Sarx (flesh): Matthew: All 5 are literal renderings Mark: All 3 are literal renderings Luke: Both are literal renderings Acts: All 4 are literal renderings John: The 5 outside of John 6 are all literal renderings John 1: The three verses are obviously literal. John 2: Obviously a literal rendering here also. Revelation: All 3 verses are clearly metaphorical or symbolic renderings. They all take into account reviling or injuring someone by "eating their flesh." Like the references from Deut 28:53ff; 32:42; 2 Sam 23:17; Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:18- 20; 49:26; Ezek 5:10ff; Bar 2:3; Micah 3:1-4, the literal rendering cannot be supported and in ALL cases the metaphorical rendering involves injuring the party whose flesh is being "eaten." In short, of the 33 references, we have 3 obviously figurative usages which clearly support the literal rendering of John 6. Of the 30 other verses, we have 3 from 1 John that support the literal position (as well as the 1 from 2 John also). All of the verses from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts support the literal position along with all 5 non John 6 renderings of sarx. Therefore, the ONLY logical conclusion is that the 7 references to sarx in John 6 are also to be taken literally. Factor in the other Greek words mentioned which strongly reinforce the literal meaning of the text (althes, phago, and trogo) and the literal position is bolstered even stronger. Factor in the Passover imagery and themes and the case for a literal understanding of the Real Presence is bolstered even more because the Jews ate the lamb at Passover and Jesus is the Lamb of God (John 1:36) who specifically stated around Passover time (John 6:4) that HE would have to be eaten. He also at the Last Supper declared the bread and wine He blessed to be His Body and Blood and told the Apostles to eat and drink them. The literal rendering is also the primary one according to the Protestant KJV lexicon for the word sarx (definition 1 refers to physical flesh); therefore it must be adopted especially considering the overwhelming evidence listed above. The only logical conclusion then is to take John 6 literally as well. In fact, everyone in the Church in the first millennium believed in a literal Real Presence. After the incident with Berengarius (1033-1088), it was another half millennium before anyone else of note ever questioned this position (as Protestants do today). In light of all of this evidence and taking into account Church history (which I will examine in part two of this essay), the Protestant symbolic rendering of John 6 is clearly unbiblical when viewed from every conceivable angle. The Catholic position (along with that of the Eastern Churches, the Anglicans, and the Lutherans) is supported by all of the evidence without exception. How than can anyone logically claim that an interpretation that differs from the Historic literal interpretation of this passage can be anything

but the very different Gospel condemned under an anathema by the Apostle Paul (1 Gal. 1:8-9)??? Part III - The Real Presence Among the Church Fathers If the Protestant position can possibly be considered viable after what was presented in part 2, then consider what is about to be presented in part 3 of this essay. The following comprises passages spanning the first 5 centuries of Christian history. Some Protestant apologists (such as Dr. Norman Geisler) have committed the serious blunder of ascribing the Real Presence (as well as the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass) to being "established around the time of Pope Gregory the Great" (r. 590-604). These Patristics source quotes spanning 147-510 years BEFORE Pope Gregory was elected to the Apostolic See should effectively shoot down this assertion and any of a similar variety that assert that the Fathers did not believe in a Real Presence that was realist in form from the earliest of times. Hopefully it will also dispel to some extent the error made by Protestant apologists that the Mass is a recrucifying of Our Lord. This is a position that is absurd on its face and reveals a profound lack of understanding the Hebrew world-view among our Protestant brethren (and I will touch on this accusation in part 4 of this essay). The Didache, 1 Clement, and the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch were written around 80, 95, and 110 AD respectively which places them all within earshot of Apostolic times. For reference, the Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation are often thought to have been written in the last decade of the first century. This would place the Didache and 1 Clement arguably BEFORE the last books of Scripture were written (which is probably why some in the early Church thought they were inspired Scripture) and the Epistles of Ignatius (a disciple of the Apostle John) within 10-15 years of the Evangelists death. St. Irenaeus of Lyons was a disciple of St. Polycarp who was a disciple of St. John and a younger contemporary of St. Ignatius. St. Justin Martyr was born around the time of Johns death and martyred around the same time as Irenaeus mentor St. Polycarp (155 for Polycarp and 165 for Justin). Tertullian and St. Clement of Alexandria were contemporaries of Irenaeus and born 10-20 years after St. Irenaeus with Origen being the pupil of Clement and St. Cyprian (200-258) being heavily influenced by Tertullian. My point in relaying this information is that these men were all closer to Apostolic times then Americans are to the Revolutionary War time with Ignatius, Clement, and Polycarp being disciples of the Apostles. Irenaeus, Justin, Clement, and Tertullian would be second generation Fathers (and Origen and Cyprian being third generation Fathers from Apostolic times). These are the earliest witnesses we have to the Faith as it was handed down from the Apostles and therefore in areas where they all have a general agreement their witness is significant (along with the others that came after them). For the sake of identification I placed a star by the names of the Eastern Fathers to separate them from the Western Fathers for the sake of showing the true universality of this doctrine. The argument is not "transubstantiation" or "consubstantiation" since strictly speaking neither position can be proven from the Fathers. However, both "transubstantiation" (Catholic position: the Eastern Churches believe in transubstantiation as understood by Catholics also) or "consubstantiation" (the position of the Anglicans and Lutherans), take into account a realist interpretation of the Eucharist. Those that claim otherwise need to present some evidences for their assertion and not just assume that they are correct. Of course since there is no evidences anywhere in the first MILLENNIUM (except among the heretics), the objectors to the Real Presence as understood by the Catholic Church (and the Eastern Churches, Anglicans, and Lutherans) have nothing to base their claims on. Nothing of course except the assertion that all of antiquity erred for 1500 years. Bearing in mind the Apostle Pauls anathematizing of novelties (Gal. 1:8-9), consider the words of antiquity please and the witness that they bear: THE DIDACHE: "Assemble on the Lord's day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, SO THAT YOUR SACRIFICE MAY BE A PURE ONE. Anyone who has a difference with his

fellow is not to take part with you until they have been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23-24]. FOR THIS IS THE OFFERING OF WHICH THE LORD HAS SAID, 'EVERYWHERE AND ALWAYS BRING ME A SACRIFICE THAT IS UNDEFILED, FOR I AM A GREAT KING, SAYS THE LORD, AND MY NAME IS THE WONDER OF NATIONS' [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 80]). POPE CLEMENT I (r. 88-97 A.D.) "Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate THOSE WHO BLAMELESSLY AND HOLILY HAVE OFFERED ITS SACRIFICES. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4-5 [A.D. 96]). *ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (40 -110 A.D.) "Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, AND ONE SINGLE ALTAR OF SACRIFICE--even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]). I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3) They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1) *ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (100 - 165 A.D.) We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has beenwashed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [Baptism], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS. (First Apology 66) [AD 151] "God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . ' [Mal. 1:10-11]. HE THEN SPEAKS OF THOSE GENTILES, NAMELY US [CHRISTIANS] WHO IN EVERY PLACE OFFER SACRIFICES TO HIM, THAT IS, THE BREAD OF THE EUCHARIST AND ALSO THE CUP OF THE EUCHARIST that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it " (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]). ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (140 - 202 A.D.) "He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, 'This is my body.' The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. HE TAUGHT THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, OF WHICH MALACHI, ONE OF THE TWELVE [MINOR] PROPHETS, HAD SIGNIFIED BEFOREHAND: 'You do not do my will,

says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty' [Mal. 1:10-11]. BY THESE WORDS HE MAKES IT PLAIN THAT THE FORMER PEOPLE WILL CEASE TO MAKE OFFERINGS TO GOD; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 180]). But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator... How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished by the body of the Lord and by His blood gives way to corruption and does not partake of life?...For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly... (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5) If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY...He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD...receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST... (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3) TERTULLIAN (160 - 240 A.D.) Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at THE SACRIFICIAL PRAYERS, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive THE BODY OF THE LORD...THE BODY OF THE LORD HAVING BEEN RECEIVED AND RESERVED, each point is secured: both the participation IN THE SACRIFICE... (Prayer 19:1) "[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; THE FLESH FEEDS ON THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, THAT THE SOUL LIKEWISE MAY BE FILLED WITH GOD" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]). The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations... WE OFFER SACRIFICES FOR THE DEAD on their birthday anniversaries.... We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground... (The Crown 3:3-4) [AD 208] A woman, after the death of her husband, is bound not less firmly but even more so...Indeed, she prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, SHE OFFERS THE SACRIFICE. (Monogamy 10:1,4)

[AD 214] ST. HIPPOLYTUS (c. 170? - 236 A.D.) "'And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table' [Prov. 9:1] . . . REFERS TO HIS HONORED AND UNDEFILED BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH DAY BY DAY ARE ADMINISTERED AND OFFERED SACRIFICIALLY AT THE SPIRITUAL DIVINE TABLE, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]). *ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (150 - 216 A.D.) Calling her children about her, she [the Church] nourishes them with holy milk, that is, with the Infant Word...The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. "EAT MY FLESH," He says, "AND DRINK MY BLOOD." The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutriments. HE DELIVERS OVER HIS FLESH, AND POURS OUT HIS BLOOD; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery! (Instructor of Children 1:6:42,1,3) *ORIGEN (185 - 254 A.D.) We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; AND THIS BREAD BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it. (Against Celsus 8:33) You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Josue 2:1) But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a 'commemoration' which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that 'Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,' that shewbread which 'God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,' and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, 'Do this in commemoration of me,' then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9) You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish....HOW IS IT THAT YOU THINK NEGLECTING THE WORD OF GOD A LESSER CRIME THAN NEGLECTING HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3) ...now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: "MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK." (Homilies on Numbers 7:2) ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (200 - 258 A.D.) And we ask that this Bread be given us daily, so that we who are in Christ and daily receive THE EUCHARIST AS THE FOOD OF SALVATION, may not, by falling into some more grievous sin and then in abstaining from communicating, be withheld from the heavenly Bread, and be separated from Christ's Body... He Himself warns us, saying, "UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE LIFE IN YOU." Therefore do we ask that our Bread, WHICH IS CHRIST, be given to us daily, so that we who abide and live in Christ may not withdraw from His sanctification and from His Body. (The Lord's Prayer 18) Also in the priest Melchisedech we see THE SACRAMENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE LORD prefigured...The order certainly is that which comes from his [Melchisedech's] sacrifice and which comes down from it: because Melchisedech was a priest of the Most High God; because he offered bread; and because he blessed Abraham. And who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who, WHEN HE OFFERED SACRIFICE TO GOD THE FATHER, OFFERED THE VERY SAME WHICH MELCHISEDECH HAD OFFERED, NAMELY BREAD AND WINE, WHICH IS IN FACT

HIS BODY AND BLOOD! (Letters 63:4) "If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, THEN CERTAINLY THE PRIEST, WHO IMITATES THAT WHICH CHRIST DID, TRULY FUNCTIONS IN PLACE OF CHRIST" (Letters 63:14 [A.D. 253]). "He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, 'Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord'. All these warnings being scorned and contemned--[lapsed Christians will often take communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] VIOLENCE IS DONE TO HIS BODY AND BLOOD; AND THEY SIN NOW AGAINST THEIR LORD MORE WITH THEIR HAND AND MOUTH THAN WHEN THEY DENIED THEIR LORD" (The Lapsed 15-16 [A.D. 251]). ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF NICAEA (c. 325 A.D.) It has come to the attention of the holy and great council that in some localities and cities deacons give the Eucharist to presbyters, ALTHOUGH NEITHER THE CANON NOR THE CUSTOM PERMITS THOSE WHO DO NOT OFFER SACRIFICE TO GIVE THE BODY OF CHRIST TO THOSE WHO DO OFFER THE SACRIFICE... (Canon 18) *ST. EPHRAIM (c. 306 - 373 A.D.) Our Lord Jesus took in His hands what in the beginning was only bread; and He blessed it, and signed it, and made it holy in the name of the Father and in the name of the Spirit; and He broke it and in His gracious kindness He distributed it to all His disciples one by one. He called the bread His living Body, and did Himself fill it with Himself and the Spirit. And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: "TAKE, ALL OF YOU EAT OF THIS, WHICH MY WORD HAS MADE HOLY. DO NOT NOW REGARD AS BREAD THAT WHICH I HAVE GIVEN YOU; BUT TAKE, EAT THIS BREAD [OF LIFE], AND DO NOT SCATTER THE CRUMBS; FOR WHAT I HAVE CALLED MY BODY, THAT IT IS INDEED. ONE PARTICLE FROM ITS CRUMBS IS ABLE TO SANCTIFY THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS, AND IS SUFFICIENT TO AFFORD LIFE TO THOSE WHO EAT OF IT. TAKE, EAT, ENTERTAINING NO DOUBT OF FAITH, BECAUSE THIS IS MY BODY, AND WHOEVER EATS IT IN BELIEF EATS IN IT FIRE AND SPIRIT. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven." But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as a certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body. After the disciples had eaten the new and holy Bread, and when they understood by faith that they had eaten of Christ's body, CHRIST WENT ON TO EXPLAIN AND TO GIVE THEM THE WHOLE SACRAMENT. HE TOOK AND MIXED A CUP OF WINE. THEN HE BLESSED IT, AND SIGNED IT, AND MADE IT HOLY, DECLARING THAT IT WAS HIS OWN BLOOD, WHICH WAS ABOUT TO BE POURED OUT...CHRIST COMMANDED THEM TO DRINK, AND HE EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT THE CUP WHICH THEY WERE DRINKING WAS HIS OWN BLOOD: "This is truly My Blood, which is shed for all of you. TAKE, ALL OF YOU, DRINK OF THIS, BECAUSE IT IS A NEW COVENANT IN MY BLOOD. AS YOU HAVE SEEN ME DO, DO YOU ALSO IN MY MEMORY. WHENEVER YOU ARE GATHERED TOGETHER IN MY NAME IN CHURCHES EVERYWHERE, DO WHAT I HAVE DONE, IN MEMORY OF ME. EAT MY BODY, AND DRINK MY BLOOD, A COVENANT NEW AND OLD." (Homilies 4:4; 4:6)

*ST. ATHANASIUS (c. 295 - 373 A.D.) You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, THEN THE BREAD IS BECOME THE BODY, AND THE WINE THE BLOOD, OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST....Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. BUT AFTER THE GREAT PRAYERS AND HOLY SUPPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN SENT FORTH, THE WORD COMES DOWN INTO THE BREAD AND WINE -- AND THUS IS HIS BODY CONFECTED. (Sermon to the Newly Baptized, from Eutyches) *APHRAAHAT THE PERSIAN SAGE "WITH HIS OWN HANDS THE LORD PRESENTED HIS OWN BODY TO BE EATEN, AND BEFORE HE WAS CRUCIFIED HE GAVE HIS BLOOD AS DRINK" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]). *ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (c. 350 A.D.) "Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, THAT HE MAY MAKE THE BREAD THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE WINE THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed. THEN, UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE SPIRITUAL SACRIFICE, THE BLOODLESS WORSHIP, OVER THAT PROPITIATORY VICTIM we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, WE ALL PRAY AND OFFER THIS SACRIFICE FOR ALL WHO ARE IN NEED" (Catechetical Lectures 23:7-8 [A.D. 350]). Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that PROPITIATORY VICTIM we call upon God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and OFFER THIS SACRIFICE FOR ALL WHO ARE IN NEED. Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this HOLY AND MOST SOLEMN SACRIFICE IS LAID OUT. For I know that there are many who are saying this: 'If a soul departs from this world with sins, what does it profit it to be remembered in the prayer?'...[we] grant a remission of their penalties...we too offer prayers to Him for those who have fallen asleep though they be sinners. We do not plait a crown, but OFFER UP CHRIST WHO HAS BEEN SACRIFICED FOR OUR SINS; AND WE THEREBY PROPITIATE THE BENEVOLENT GOD FOR THEM AS WELL AS FOR OURSELVES. (23 [Mystagogic 5], 8, 9, 10) This one teaching of the blessed Paul is enough to give you complete certainty about the Divine Mysteries, by your having been deemed worthy of which, you have become united in body and blood with Christ. For Paul proclaimed clearly that: "On the night in which He was betrayed, our Lord Jesus Christ, taking bread and giving thanks, broke it and gave it to His disciples, saying: 'Take, eat, This is My Body.' And taking the cup and giving thanks, He said, 'Take, drink, This is My Blood.'" HE HIMSELF, THEREFORE, HAVING DECLARED AND SAID OF THE BREAD, "THIS IS MY BODY," WHO WILL DARE ANY LONGER TO DOUBT? AND WHEN HE HIMSELF HAS AFFIRMED AND SAID, "THIS IS MY BLOOD," WHO CAN EVER HESITATE AND SAY IT IS NOT HIS BLOOD? (22 [Mystagogic 4], 1) Do not, therefore, regard the Bread and the Wine as simply that; FOR THEY ARE, ACCORDING TO

THE MASTER'S DECLARATION, THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but -- be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ. (22 [Mystagogic 4], 6) *ST. SERAPION: "Accept therewith our hallowing too, as we say, 'Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of your glory.' Heaven is full, and full is the earth, with your magnificent glory, Lord of Virtues. FULL ALSO IS THIS SACRIFICE, WITH YOUR STRENGTH AND YOUR COMMUNION; FOR TO YOU WE OFFER THIS LIVING SACRIFICE, THIS UNBLOODY OBLATION" (Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice 13:12-16 [A.D. 350]). ST. HILARY OF POITIERS (c. 315 - 368 A.D.) When we speak of the reality of Christ's nature being in us, we would be speaking foolishly and impiously -- had we not learned it from Him. FOR HE HIMSELF SAYS: "MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK. HE THAT EATS MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD WILL REMAIN IN ME AND I IN HIM." AS TO THE REALITY OF HIS FLESH AND BLOOD, THERE IS NO ROOM LEFT FOR DOUBT, BECAUSE NOW, BOTH BY THE DECLARATION OF THE LORD HIMSELF AND BY OUR OWN FAITH, IT IS TRULY FLESH AND IT IS TRULY BLOOD. AND THESE ELEMENTS BRING IT ABOUT, WHEN TAKEN AND CONSUMED, THAT WE ARE IN CHRIST AND CHRIST IS IN US. Is this not true? Let those who deny that Jesus Christ is true God be free to find these things untrue. But He Himself is in us through the flesh and we are in Him, while that which we are with Him is in God. (The Trinity 8:14) ST. EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS (c. 315 - 403 A.D.) We see that the Savior took in His hands, as it is in the Gospel, when He was reclining at the supper; and He took this, and giving thanks, He said: "THIS IS REALLY ME." And He gave to His disciples and said: "THIS IS REALLY ME." And we see that It is not equal nor similar, not to the incarnate image, not to the invisible divinity, not to the outline of His limbs. For It is round of shape, and devoid of feeling. As to Its power, He means to say even of Its grace, "THIS IS REALLY ME"; and none disbelieves His word. FOR ANYONE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE THE TRUTH IN WHAT HE SAYS IS DEPRIVED OF GRACE AND OF SAVIOR. (The Man Well-Anchored 57) *ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZ (c. 330 - 389 A.D.) "CEASE NOT TO PRAY AND PLEAD FOR ME WHEN YOU DRAW DOWN THE WORD BY YOUR WORD, WHEN IN AN UNBLOODY CUTTING YOU CUT THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD, USING YOUR VOICE FOR A SWORD" (Letter to Amphilochius 171 [A.D. 383]). *ST. BASIL THE GREAT (c. 330 - 379 A.D.) To communicate each day AND TO PARTAKE OF THE HOLY BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST IS GOOD AND BENEFICIAL; FOR HE SAYS QUITE PLAINLY: "HE THAT EATS MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD HAS ETERNAL LIFE." Who can doubt that to share continually in life is the same thing as having life abundantly? We ourselves communicate four times each week...and on other days if there is a commemoration of any saint. (Letter of Basil to a Patrician Lady Caesaria) ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (c. 333 - 397 A.D.) We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us. WE FOLLOW, INASMUCH AS WE ARE ABLE, BEING PRIESTS, AND WE OFFER THE SACRIFICE ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE. Even if we are of but little merit, STILL, IN THE SACRIFICE, WE ARE HONORABLE. Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, NEVERTHELESS IT IS HE HIMSELF THAT IS OFFERED IN SACRIFICE HERE ON EARTH WHEN THE BODY OF CHRIST IS OFFERED. Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us, HE WHOSE WORD MAKES HOLY THE SACRIFICE THAT IS

OFFERED" (Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David 38:25 [A.D. 389]). "MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK." YOU HEAR HIM SPEAK OF HIS FLESH, YOU HEAR HIM SPEAK OF HIS BLOOD, YOU KNOW THE SACRED SIGNS OF THE LORD'S DEATH; AND DO YOU WORRY ABOUT HIS DIVINITY? HEAR HIS WORDS WHEN HE SAYS: "A SPIRIT HAS NOT FLESH AND BONES." AS OFTEN AS WE RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTAL ELEMENTS WHICH THROUGH THE MYSTERY OF THE SACRED PRAYER ARE TRANSFORMED INTO THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF THE LORD, WE PROCLAIM THE DEATH OF THE LORD. (The Faith 4:10:124) Perhaps you may be saying: I SEE SOMETHING ELSE; HOW CAN YOU ASSURE ME THAT I AM RECEIVING THE BODY OF CHRIST? It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! Let us prove that this is not what nature has shaped it to be, BUT WHAT THE BLESSING HAS CONSECRATED; FOR THE POWER OF THE BLESSING IS GREATER THAN THAT OF NATURE, BECAUSE BY THE BLESSING EVEN NATURE ITSELF IS CHANGED...CHRIST IS IN THAT SACRAMENT, BECAUSE IT IS THE BODY OF CHRIST; YET, IT IS NOT ON THAT ACCOUNT CORPOREAL FOOD, BUT SPIRITUAL. Whence also His Apostle says of the type: "For our fathers ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink" (1 Cor 10:2-4; 15:44). For the body of God is a spiritual body. (The Mysteries 9:50; 9:58) You may perhaps say: "My bread is ordinary." But that bread is bread before the words of the Sacraments; where the consecration has entered in, the bread becomes the flesh of Christ. And let us add this: HOW CAN WHAT IS BREAD BE THE BODY OF CHRIST? BY THE CONSECRATION. The consecration takes place by certain words; but whose words? Those of the Lord Jesus. Like all the rest of the things said beforehand, they are said by the priest; praises are referred to God, prayer of petition is offered for the people, for kings, for other persons; but when the time comes for the confection of the venerable Sacrament, then the priest uses not his own words but the words of Christ. Therefore it is the word of Christ that confects this Sacrament....BEFORE IT BE CONSECRATED IT IS BREAD; BUT WHERE THE WORDS OF CHRIST COME IN, IT IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. FINALLY, HEAR HIM SAYING: "ALL OF YOU TAKE AND EAT OF THIS; FOR THIS IS MY BODY." AND BEFORE THE WORDS OF CHRIST THE CHALICE IS FULL OF WINE AND WATER; BUT WHERE THE WORDS OF CHRIST HAVE BEEN OPERATIVE IT IS MADE THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, WHICH REDEEMS THE PEOPLE. (The Sacraments 4:4:14; 4:5:23) *ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA (c. 335 - 394 A.D.) This Body, by the indwelling of God the Word, has been made over to divine dignity. RIGHTLY THEN, DO WE BELIEVE THAT THE BREAD CONSECRATED BY THE WORD OF GOD HAS BEEN MADE OVER INTO THE BODY OF GOD THE WORD. FOR THAT BODY WAS, AS TO ITS POTENCY, BREAD; BUT IT HAS BEEN CONSECRATED BY THE LODGING THERE OF THE WORD, WHO PITCHED HIS TENT IN THE FLESH. FROM THE SAME CAUSE, THEREFORE, BY WHICH THE BREAD THAT WAS MADE OVER INTO THAT BODY IS MADE TO CHANGE INTO DIVINE STRENGTH, A SIMILAR RESULT NOW TAKES PLACE. As in the former case, in which the grace of the Word made holy that body the substance of which is from bread, and in a certain manner is itself bread, so in this case too, the bread, as the Apostle says, "is consecrated by God's word and by prayer"; NOT THROUGH ITS BEING EATEN DOES IT ADVANCE TO BECOME THE BODY OF THE WORD, BUT IT IS MADE OVER IMMEDIATELY INTO THE BODY BY MEANS OF THE WORD, JUST AS WAS STATED BY THE WORD, "THIS IS MY BODY!" ...IN THE PLAN OF HIS GRACE HE SPREADS HIMSELF TO EVERY BELIEVER BY MEANS OF THAT FLESH, THE SUBSTANCE OF WHICH IS FROM WINE AND BREAD, BLENDING HIMSELF WITH THE BODIES OF BELIEVERS, SO THAT BY THIS UNION WITH THE IMMORTAL, MAN, TOO, MAY BECOME A PARTICIPANT IN INCORRUPTION. THESE THINGS HE BESTOWS THROUGH THE POWER OF THE BLESSING

WHICH TRANSFORMS THE NATURE OF THE VISIBLE THINGS TO THAT [OF THE IMMORTAL]. (The Great Catechism 37) The bread again is at first common bread; BUT WHEN THE MYSTERY SANCTIFIES IT, IT IS CALLED AND ACTUALLY BECOMES THE BODY OF CHRIST. SO TOO THE MYSTICAL OIL, SO TOO THE WINE; IF THEY ARE THINGS OF LITTLE WORTH BEFORE THE BLESSING, AFTER THEIR SANCTIFICATION BY THE SPIRIT EACH OF THEM HAS ITS OWN SUPERIOR OPERATION. This same power of the word also makes the priest venerable and honorable, separated from the generality of men by the new blessing bestowed upon him. (Sermon on the Day of Lights or On the Baptism of Christ) He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." When did He do this? WHEN HE MADE HIS OWN BODY FOOD AND HIS OWN BLOOD DRINK FOR HIS DISCIPLES; FOR THIS MUCH IS CLEAR ENOUGH TO ANYONE, THAT A SHEEP CANNOT BE EATEN BY A MAN UNLESS ITS BEING EATEN BE PRECEDED BY ITS BEING SLAUGHTERED. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been completed. (Sermon One on the Resurrection of Christ) *ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. 344 - 407 A.D.) "WHEN YOU SEE THE LORD IMMOLATED AND LYING UPON THE ALTAR, and the PRIEST BENT OVER THAT SACRIFICE PRAYING, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?" (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387]). "REVERENCE, THEREFORE, REVERENCE THIS TABLE, OF WHICH WE ARE ALL COMMUNICANTS! CHRIST, SLAIN FOR US, THE SACRIFICIAL VICTIM WHO IS PLACED THEREON!" (Homilies on Romans 8:8 [A.D. 391]). "'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of Christ?' Very trustworthy and awesomely does he say it. For what he is saying is this: WHAT IS IN THE CUP IS THAT WHICH FLOWED FROM HIS SIDE, AND WE PARTAKE OF IT. He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise him in song, wondering and astonished at his indescribable gift, blessing him because of his having poured out this very gift so that we might not remain in error; and not only for his having poured it out, but also for his sharing it with all of us. 'If therefore you desire blood,' he says, 'do not redden the platform of idols with the slaughter of dumb beasts, BUT MY ALTAR OF SACRIFICE WITH MY BLOOD.' What is more awesome than this? What, pray tell, more tenderly loving?" (Homilies on 1 Corinthians 24:1(3) [A.D. 392]). "In ancient times, because men were very imperfect, God did not scorn to receive the blood which they were offering . . . to draw them away from those idols; and this very thing again was because of his indescribable, tender affection. BUT NOW HE HAS TRANSFERRED THE PRIESTLY ACTION TO WHAT IS MOST AWESOME AND MAGNIFICENT. HE HAS CHANGED THE SACRIFICE ITSELF, AND INSTEAD OF THE BUTCHERING OF DUMB BEASTS, HE COMMANDS THE OFFERING UP OF HIMSELF" (ibid., 24:2). "WHAT THEN? DO WE NOT OFFER DAILY? YES, WE OFFER, BUT MAKING REMEMBRANCE OF HIS DEATH; AND THIS REMEMBRANCE IS ONE AND NOT MANY. HOW IS IT ONE AND NOT MANY? BECAUSE THIS SACRIFICE IS OFFERED ONCE, LIKE THAT IN THE HOLY OF HOLIES. THIS SACRIFICE IS A TYPE OF THAT, AND THIS REMEMBRANCE A TYPE OF THAT. WE OFFER ALWAYS THE SAME, NOT ONE SHEEP NOW AND ANOTHER TOMORROW, BUT THE SAME THING ALWAYS. THUS THERE IS ONE SACRIFICE. BY THIS REASONING, SINCE THE SACRIFICE IS OFFERED EVERYWHERE, ARE THERE, THEN, A MULTIPLICITY OF CHRISTS? BY NO MEANS! CHRIST IS ONE EVERYWHERE. HE IS COMPLETE HERE, COMPLETE THERE, ONE BODY. AND JUST AS HE IS ONE BODY AND NOT MANY THOUGH OFFERED EVERYWHERE, SO TOO IS THERE ONE

SACRIFICE" (Homilies on Hebrews 17:3(6) [A.D. 403]). Christ is present. The One [Christ] who prepared that [Holy Thursday] table is the very One who now prepares this [altar] table. FOR IT IS NOT A MAN WHO MAKES THE SACRIFICIAL GIFTS BECOME THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, BUT HE THAT WAS CRUCIFIED FOR US, CHRIST HIMSELF. The priest stands there carrying out the action, but the power and the grace is of God, "THIS IS MY BODY," he says. THIS STATEMENT TRANSFORMS THE GIFTS. (Homilies on Treachery of Judas 1:6) Let us therefore in all respects put our faith in God and contradict Him in nothing, even if what is said seems to be contrary to our reasonings and to what we see. Let His WORD be of superior authority to reason and sight. This too be our practice in respect to the [Eucharistic] Mysteries, not looking only upon what is laid out before us, but taking heed also of His WORDS. For His WORD cannot deceive; but our senses are easily cheated. His WORD never failed; our senses err most of the time. When the WORD says, "THIS IS MY BODY," be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the REBIRTH and the RENEWAL....How many now say, "I wish I could see his shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals." ONLY LOOK! YOU SEE HIM! YOU TOUCH HIM! YOU EAT HIM! (Homilies on Matthew 82:4) Take care, then, lest you too become guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ [1 Cor 11:27]. They slaughtered His most holy body; but you, after such great benefits, receive HIM into a filthy soul. For it was not enough for Him to be made Man, to be struck and to be slaughtered, but He even mingles Himself with us; and this NOT BY FAITH ONLY, but even in every DEED He makes us His BODY. HOW VERY PURE, THEN, OUGHT HE NOT BE, WHO ENJOYS THE BENEFIT OF THIS SACRIFICE? (ibid 82:5) ...if everywhere grace required worthiness, there could neither then be Baptism nor Body of Christ nor the sacrifice priests offer.....now He has transferred the priestly action [of ancient times] to what is most awesome and magnificent. HE HAS CHANGED THE SACRIFICE ITSELF, AND INSTEAD OF THE BUTCHERING OF DUMB BEASTS, HE COMMANDS THE OFFERING UP OF HIMSELF....What is that Bread? The Body of Christ! What do they become who are partakers therein? The Body of Christ! Not many bodies, but one Body....For you are not nourished by one Body while someone else is nourished by another Body; rather, all are nourished by the same Body....WHEN YOU SEE [THE BODY OF CHRIST] LYING ON THE ALTAR, SAY TO YOURSELF, "BECAUSE OF THIS BODY I AM NO LONGER EARTH AND ASH, NO LONGER A PRISONER, BUT FREE. BECAUSE OF THIS BODY I HOPE FOR HEAVEN, AND I HOPE TO RECEIVE THE GOOD THINGS THAT ARE IN HEAVEN, IMMORTAL LIFE, THE LOT OF THE ANGELS, FAMILIAR CONVERSATION WITH CHRIST. THIS BODY, SCOURGED AND CRUCIFIED, HAS NOT BEEN FETCHED BY DEATH...THIS IS THAT BODY WHICH WAS BLOOD-STAINED, WHICH WAS PIERCED BY A LANCE, AND FROM WHICH GUSHED FORTH THOSE SAVING FOUNTAINS, ONE OF BLOOD AND THE OTHER OF WATER, FOR ALL THE WORLD"...THIS IS THE BODY WHICH HE GAVE US, BOTH TO HOLD IN RESERVE AND TO EAT, WHICH WAS APPROPRIATE TO INTENSE LOVE; FOR THOSE WHOM WE KISS WITH ABANDON WE OFTEN EVEN BITE WITH OUR TEETH. (Homilies on Corinthians 8, 1[2]; 24, 2[3]; 24, 2[4]; 24, 4[7]) Not in vain was it decreed BY THE APOSTLES that in the awesome Mysteries remembrance should be made of the DEPARTED. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. For when the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, AND THAT AWESOME SACRIFICIAL VICTIM IS LAID OUT, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have DEPARTED in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give

alms to the poor on their behalf. (Homilies on Philippians 3:4) ST. JEROME (c. 340 - 420 A.D.) Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the Apostles, CONFECT BY THEIR SACRED WORD THE BODY OF CHRIST, and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians... (Letter of Jerome to Heliodorus) THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF CHRIST IS UNDERSTOOD IN TWO WAYS; THERE IS EITHER THE SPIRITUAL AND DIVINE WAY, BY WHICH HE HIMSELF SAID: "MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK"; AND "UNLESS YOU SHALL HAVE EATEN MY FLESH AND DRUNK MY BLOOD YOU SHALL NOT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE." Or else there is the flesh and blood which was crucified and which was poured out by the soldier's lance. (Commentaries on Ephesians 1:1:7) After the type had been fulfilled by the passover celebration and He had eaten the flesh of the lamb with His Apostles, He takes bread which strengthens the heart of man, and goes on to the true Sacrament of the passover, so that just as Melchisedech, the priest of the Most High God, in prefiguring Him, made bread and wine an offering, HE TOO MAKES HIMSELF MANIFEST IN THE REALITY OF HIS OWN BODY AND BLOOD. (Commentaries on Matthew 4:26:26) ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354-434 A.D.) "IN THE SACRAMENT HE IS IMMOLATED FOR THE PEOPLE NOT ONLY ON EVERY EASTER SOLEMNITY BUT ON EVERY DAY; AND A MAN WOULD NOT BE LYING IF, WHEN ASKED, HE WERE TO REPLY THAT CHRIST IS BEING IMMOLATED. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness" (Letters 98:9 [A.D. 412]). "For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, 'There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink' [Eccl. 2:24], WHAT CAN HE BE MORE CREDIBLY UNDERSTOOD TO SAY [PROPHETICALLY] THAN WHAT BELONGS TO THE PARTICIPATION OF THIS TABLE WHICH THE MEDIATOR OF THE NEW TESTAMENT HIMSELF, THE PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK, FURNISHES WITH HIS OWN BODY AND BLOOD? FOR THAT SACRIFICE HAS SUCCEEDED ALL THE SACRIFICES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, WHICH WERE SLAIN AS A SHADOW OF WHAT WAS TO COME. . . . BECAUSE, INSTEAD OF ALL THESE SACRIFICES AND OBLATIONS, HIS BODY IS OFFERED AND IS SERVED UP TO THE PARTAKERS OF IT" (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]). APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS (c. 400 A.D.) A bishop gives the blessing, he does not receive it. He imposes hands, he ordains, HE OFFERS THE SACRIFICE...A deacon does not bless. He does not bestow blessing, but he receives it from bishop and presbyter. He does not baptize; HE DOES NOT OFFER THE SACRIFICE. WHEN A BISHOP OR A PRESBYTER OFFERS THE SACRIFICE, HE DISTRIBUTES TO THE LAITY, NOT AS A PRIEST, BUT AS ONE WHO IS MINISTERING TO PRIESTS. (8:28:2-4) THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (d. 428 A.D.) He did not say, "This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood," BUT "THIS IS MY BODY AND MY BLOOD," teaching us not to look upon the nature of what is set before us, BUT THAT IT IS TRANSFORMED BY MEANS OF THE EUCHARISTIC ACTION INTO FLESH AND BLOOD. (Commentary on Matthew 26:26) It is proper, therefore, that when [Christ] gave the Bread He did not say, "This is the symbol of My Body," but, "This is My Body." In the same way when He gave the Cup He did not say, "This is the symbol of My Blood," but, "This is My Blood"; for He wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, BUT

[THAT WE SHOULD] RECEIVE THEM AS THEY ARE, THE BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR LORD. WE OUGHT...NOT REGARD THE [EUCHARISTIC ELEMENTS] MERELY AS BREAD AND CUP, BUT AS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, INTO WHICH THEY WERE TRANSFORMED BY THE DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. (Catechetical Homilies 5) [If we have sinned], the Body and Blood of our Lord...will strengthen us...if with diligence we do good works and turn from evil deeds and truly repent of the sins that befall us, undoubtedly we shall obtain the grace of the remission of our sins in our receiving of the holy Sacrament. (Catechetical Homilies 16) At first [the offering] is laid upon the altar as mere bread, and wine mixed with water; BUT BY THE COMING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IT IS TRANSFORMED INTO THE BODY AND THE BLOOD, AND THUS IT IS CHANGED INTO THE POWER OF A SPIRITUAL AND IMMORTAL NOURISHMENT. (Catechetical Homilies 16) ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (c. 431 A.D.) "We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, WE OFFER THE UNBLOODY SACRIFICE IN THE CHURCHES, AND SO GO ON TO THE MYSTICAL THANKSGIVINGS, AND ARE SANCTIFIED, HAVING RECEIVED HIS HOLY FLESH AND THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST THE SAVIOR OF US ALL. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, BUT AS TRULY THE LIFE-GIVING AND VERY FLESH OF THE WORD HIMSELF. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving" (session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]). SECHNALL OF IRELAND (c. AD 444) "[St. Patrick] proclaims boldly to the [Irish] tribes the Name of the Lord, to whom he gives the eternal grace of the laver of salvation; for their offenses he prays daily unto God; FOR THEM ALSO HE OFFERS UP TO GOD WORTHY SACRIFICES" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 13) Part IV - Addressing Some Protestant Presuppositions The Mass makes the Lords Sacrifice of Calvary really present (anamnesis) before us on the altar at Mass from which the Body and Blood of the Lord is really partaken of in the form of a sacramentum by the priest and the faithful. This is what Catholics and the Eastern Churches believe happens at Mass and while I know the first reaction of Protestants is to claim that it is "unbiblical"; in reality it is far from the case as I will detail in the following section Hopefully this will once again crystalize in the minds of all Christians the exhortation of the Apostle Peter of how the Scriptures are easily twisted by the unlearned and unstable to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:14-17). Protestants do this constantly and perhaps in no area is this maxim best illustrated then when it comes to the topics of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Eucharist. The renowned Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly in his book "Early Christian Doctrines" wrote the following about the understanding of the Eucharist in the early Church: "[T]he eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice FROM THE CLOSING DECADE OF THE FIRST CENTURY, IF NOT EARLIER. Malachi's prediction (1:10-11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have 'a pure offering' made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies he term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist . . . IT WAS NATURAL FOR EARLY CHRISTIANS TO THINK OF THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE. THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY

DEMANDED A SOLEMN CHRISTIAN OFFERING, AND THE RITE ITSELF WAS WRAPPED IN THE SACRIFICIAL ATMOSPHERE WITH WHICH OUR LORD INVESTED THE LAST SUPPER. The words of institution, 'Do this' (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, 'Offer this.' . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered 'for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,' a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord's body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection" (Early Christian Doctrines, pgs. 196-7). Calvary is re-enacted at every Mass: the concept of which takes us outside of time before the Lord to whom Calvary is a constant occurrence (because the past, present, and future are simultaneous to Him). The concept is Jewish in origen and takes on the form of the Passover which the rabbis teach that every Jew must personally experience to be Jewish. This was relayed to the children of Israel in the book of Exodus: Exodus 12:3 "Speak ye to the whole assembly of the children of Israel, and say to them: On the tenth day of this month let every man take a lamb by their families and houses. 4 But if the number be less than may suffice to eat the lamb, he shall take unto him his neighbour that joineth to his house, according to the number of souls which may be enough to eat the lamb. 5 AND IT SHALL BE A LAMB WITHOUT BLEMISH, a male, of one year: according to which rite also you shall take a kid 6 And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month: and the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice it in the evening. 7 And they shall take of the blood thereof, and put it upon both the side posts, and on the upper door posts of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 8 And they shall eat the flesh that night roasted at the fire, and unleavened bread with wild lettuce. 9 You shall not eat thereof any thing raw, nor boiled in water, but only roasted at the fire: you shall eat the head with the feet and entrails thereof. 10 Neither shall there remain any thing of it until morning. If there be any thing left, you shall burn it with fire 14 And this day shall be for a memorial to you: and you shall keep it a feast to the Lord in your generations with an everlasting observance. 15 Seven days shall you eat unleavened bread: in the first day there shall be no leaven in your houses: whosoever shall eat any thing leavened, from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall perish out of Israel. 16 The first day shall be holy and solemn, and the seventh day shall be kept with the like solemnity: you shall do no work in them, except those things that belong to eating. 17 And you shall observe the feast of the unleavened bread: for in this same day I will bring forth your army out of the land of Egypt, and you shall keep this day in your generations by a perpetual observance 21 And Moses called all the ancients of the children of Israel, and said to them: Go take a lamb by your families, and sacrifice the Phase. 22 And dip a bunch of hyssop in the blood that is at the door, and sprinkle the transom of the door therewith, and both door cheeks: let none of you go out of the door of his house till morning. 23 For the Lord will pass through striking the Egyptians: and when he shall see the blood on the transom, and on both the posts, he will pass over the door of the house, and not suffer the destroyer to come into your houses and to hurt you. 24 THOU SHALT KEEP THIS THING AS A LAW FOR THEE AND THY CHILDREN FOR EVER. 25 And when you have entered into the land which the Lord will give you as he hath promised, you shall observe these ceremonies. 26 And when your children shall say to you: What is the meaning of this service? 27 You shall say to them: It IS the passover sacrifice of the Lord, when he passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, striking the Egyptians, and saving our houses. And the people bowing themselves, adored. 28 And the children of Israel going forth did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron 42 This is the observable night of the Lord, when he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt: THIS NIGHT ALL THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL MUST OBSERVE IN THEIR GENERATIONS. 43 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the service of the Phase: No foreigner shall eat of it. 44 But every bought servant shall be circumcised, and so shall eat. 45 The stranger and the hireling shall not eat thereof. 46 In one house shall

it be eaten, neither shall you carry forth of the flesh thereof out of the house, neither shall you break a bone thereof. 47 All the assembly of the children of Israel shall keep it. 48 And if any stranger be willing to dwell among you, and to keep the Phase of the Lord, all his males shall first be circumcised, and then shall he celebrate it according to the manner: and he shall be as he that is born in the land: but if any man be uncircumcised, he shall not eat thereof. 49 The same law shall be to him that is born in the land, and to the proselyte that sojourneth with you. 50 And all the children of Israel did as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron. 51 And the same day the Lord brought forth the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their companies. Like the Jews, the Church does not allow "foreigners" to partake of the Eucharist who have not been entered into the covenant. They must be "circumcised" in the spirit much as in the old covenant circumcision of the flesh was required. Also, notice the perpetual remembrance of the Passover as expounded in Exodus. The rabbis taught that this participation was no mere symbolism but a real partaking of the exodus experience from Egypt by all who underwent the Passover in every generation. Or to quote the Mishnah on the subject of the Passover Haggadah: The Mishnah>br> Pesahim 10:5 In every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has gone forth from Egypt, since it is said, "And you shall tell your son in that day saying, It is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt" (Ex. 13:8). Therefore we are duty-bound to thank, praise, glorify, honor, exalt, extol, and bless him who did for our forefathers and for us all these miracles. He brought us forth from slavery to freedom, anguish to joy, mourning to festival, darkness to great light, subjugation to redemption, so we should say before him, Hallelujah. The Hebrew understanding of time is not that it is a fixed point which recedes into the past but instead is eternally present. This is how the Church understands the Mass which was first promulgated by Our Lord at the Last Supper in the context of the Passover remembrance. Our Lord made the command that all in the New Covenant were to partake in the covenant of Our Lords blood offered in sacrifice at the Last Supper and shed for the remission of sins on Calvary. From the Sacrifice of the Mass flows the infinite merit of the Cross from which they are applied to people of every generation for all time until the Lord returns to judge the world. The Apostolic view is one that discards time barriers and views Calvary as God does. THIS is why the Mass is a true Sacrifice and is not a "recrucifying of Christ" as many Protestant apologists claim. This is the witness of the Fathers and Protestants who seek to manufacture a consensus for an opposing view or claim that no consensus for this view exists in antiquity are only deceiving themselves. There are many unbiblical and unfounded Protestant presuppositions concerning both the nature of the Mass and also how the doctrine of the Eucharist appears in the writings of the early Church. I have already addressed the erroneous and unbiblical "recrucifying of Christ" canard which in making it the Protestant underscores their profound ignorance of the Hebraic concept of time and its manifestation through the liturgy of worship. I will address the errors in how Protestants understand the Fathers in a moment. These errors in understanding are based on an unbiblical and un-Hebrew Protestant dichotomous mindset which was alien to the Jews, the early Church, and the Fathers. This error is Hellenistic in origin and is a corruption of the manner in which the Bible and Christianity are properly understood. This is why almost all Protestants (including notable apologists such as Norman Geisler and James White) grossly err in their understanding of the Sacrifice of the Mass. They fail to understand the Hebrew nature of Catholicism and how the Incarnational concept permeates our worldview. This is also why Protestants cannot understand how their doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are so patently anti-biblical, anti-historical, anti-logical, and anti-Hebraic. They are based on the same defects that

impair the proper understanding of the core of Catholicism which is that of the Incarnational concept. I intend to write on this subject eventually but understanding the Incarnational concept is the "key" to unlocking Catholicism in all of its teachings. I have demonstrated its application in the way Catholics understand the Mass (and the way our Eastern brethren understand their worship also which they do not call the Mass but instead "The Divine Liturgy"). The Apostolic concept is the same and is heavily suffused with Hebrew themes especially ones of the covenantal relationship between God and man. This relationship is universal (Gk. Katholikos) in scope. The same kind of defects impair the understanding of Protestants of the writings of the Church Fathers on numerous topics including the Eucharist. The Fathers looked at the Eucharist in many ways. While primarily the Eucharist was seen in realist means (as a sacrifice and as the literal body and blood of Our Lord) some Fathers also entertained other means of viewing this mystery. Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen and even at times Augustine of Hippo were more allegorical in their approach and some Protestant apologists point to the symbolism used in the writings of these Fathers (and a few others) and claim that these Fathers did not take the realist view. However this is a serious error in anachronism because what we call a symbol or figure today is not what the ancients held it to be. As the liberal Protestant scholar Adolph Harnack (who was never fond of the Catholic Church) noted in his work "History of Dogma", what we nowadays understand by symbol is a thing which is not that which it represents. This is markedly different from the way the ancient Church understood the concept. To paraphrase Harnack: "At that time, symbol denoted a thing which in some kind of way REALLY IS WHAT IT SIGNIFIES." This point was also emphasized in the writings of the aforementioned J.N.D. Kelly, considered one of the greatest Protestant early church historians of the 20th century: "Occasionally these writers [the Fathers] use language which has been held to imply that, for all its realist sound, their use of the terms 'body' and 'blood' may after all be merely symbolical. Tertullian, for example, refers [E.g. C. Marc. 3,19; 4,40] to the bread as 'a figure' (figura) of Christ's body, and once speaks [Ibid I,14: cf. Hippolytus, apost. trad. 32,3] of 'the bread by which He represents (repraesentat) His very body.' YET WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT INTERPRETING SUCH EXPRESSIONS IN A MODERN FASHION. According to ancient modes of thought a mysterious relationship existed between the thing symbolized and its symbol, figure or type; THE SYMBOL IN SOME SENSE WAS THE THING SYMBOLIZED. Again, the verb -repraesentare-, in Tertullian's vocabulary [Cf. ibid 4,22; de monog. 10], retained its original significance of 'to make PRESENT.' All that his language really suggests is that, while accepting the EQUATION of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them. In fact, he is trying, with the aid of the concept of -figura-, to rationalize to himself the apparent contradiction between (a) the dogma that the elements are NOW Christ's body and blood, and (b) the empirical fact that for sensation they remain bread and wine." (Early Christian Doctrines, page 212). This point is also amplified by Anglican scholar Darwell Stone: "To suppose that 'SYMBOL' in Clement of Alexandria or 'FIGURE' in Tertullian must mean the same as in modern speech would be to assent to a line of thought which is gravely misleading." (A History Of The Doctrine Of The Holy Eucharist vol 1, pg 31) This is why Protestant apologists are so far off base when they try to appropriate Fathers who were more allegorical then literal in their theological approaches (such as St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and St. Augustine to name a few) as believers in the Real Presence different to what Catholics, the Eastern Churches, Anglicans, and Lutherans hold to. What we now call symbol is something completely different from what was so called by the ancient Church and failure to understand time periods, languages, customs, and thought patterns of the ancients will get one in a whole heap of trouble when

they try to determine according to modern meanings of terms what the ancients meant by using the same terms. The contemporary usage of "gay" for example is night and day different then it was only 50 years ago in primary meaning. This is the same with the concept of "symbol" or "figure" in what it means now and what it meant 1,400+ years ago. A little common sense is in order here. After all, if the Divine Scriptures can be twisted as to their meaning by the unlearned and unstable among us (2 Pet. 3:14-17), why would anyone be nave enough to think that the non-inspired writings of the Fathers are less suseptable to being misunderstood then the very Word of God is??? The problem lies in two more seriously flawed methodologies that were utilized by the "reformers" and of which their spiritual descendants unfortunately have adopted: the errors of dichotomization and compartmentalization. I will address these in part 5. Part V - Dichotomies and Antiquity The primary problem as I noted in the previous section is the profound misunderstanding of covenant, hebraism, and incarnationalism as the triune threads interwoven throughout the tapestry of all Catholic doctrines. Protestantism for the most part in compensating for these glaring defects seeks to dichotomize and compartmentalize mysteries that cannot be so reduced to simplistic formulas. When it comes to the Fathers, the Protestant will read a Father who speaks in one passage in a more symbol-laden manner and say "see he did not believe in the Real Presence the way Roman Catholics do" and either ignore other passages by the same Father where he speaks in a realist fashion or they interpret the realist passages by way of their gross misunderstanding of the symbol-laden passage on account of being ignorant of what the ancient Church meant by types and symbols. It is a common mindset among Protestants: a constant "either/or" mentality that as I noted earlier is alien to the Hebrew worldview of the Jews, that was alien to the views of the Fathers, and which is alien to the views of the Catholic Church today (and the Eastern Churches also). The Catholic Church like the Fathers and like the Scripture authors (and like Our Lord) constantly takes a "both/and" viewpoint. The Eucharist is but one of countless examples of this viewpoint. It is both the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ and also a symbol of His body and blood. It is both a solemn sacrifice for sin offered on an altar (Heb. 13:10) and a community banquet which is a participation in the body and blood of Our Lord (1 Cor. 10:17). Our Lord called it His body and thus the Eucharist IS His body. The Church has pondered this great mystery for 20 centuries and has proposed a diversity of means of better comprehending this unfathomable mystery. She accepts all possible explanations that do not seek to contradict the primary understanding of the Eucharist that has always been held from the earliest of days: that the Eucharist is the literal flesh and blood of Our Lord offered in sacrifice to God in restitution for our sins and the sins of all men. There is a reason why St. Paul admonished the Corinthians so harshly in his first Epistle because of Eucharist abuses. There is a reason why he told them "Whoever eats this bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily WILL BE GUILTY OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORDfor he who eats and drinks unworthily, without discerning the body, EATS AND DRINKS JUDGMENT UNTO HIMSELF" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). The reason is because the Eucharist IS the Body of Christ and the Cup of Blessing which is blessed IS a sharing of the Blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). Thus those who do not discern what they are eating when they partake of the Eucharist (that it is the Body of Christ) bring judgment upon themselves for profaning the very Body and Blood of the Lord. To again cite Protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelly on the matter: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . .the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. CLEARLY HE INTENDS THIS REALISM TO BE TAKEN STRICTLY, FOR HE MAKES IT THE BASIS OF HIS ARGUMENT AGAINST THE DOCETISTS' DENIAL OF THE REALITY OF CHRIST'S BODY. . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord's body and blood. HIS WITNESS IS, INDEED, ALL THE MORE IMPRESSIVE BECAUSE HE PRODUCES IT QUITE INCIDENTALLY WHILE REFUTING THE GNOSTIC AND DOCETIC REJECTION OF THE LORD'S REAL HUMANITY"

"Hippolytus speaks of 'the body and the blood' through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as 'the Lord's body.' The converted pagan, he remarks, 'feeds on the richness of the Lord's body, that is, on the Eucharist.' The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist 'the flesh feeds upon Christ's body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.' Clearly his assumption is that the Savior's body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian's attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, 'do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.' Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (Early Christian Doctrines pgs. 197-8, 211-2). There was no need to formulate precise dogmas on the Eucharist until the Eucharist became the subject of controversy. There were a couple of small controversies in the 9th and 10th centuries but nothing before Berengarius that would constitute the kind of rupture in Eucharistic theology akin to the Trinitarian battles of the 4th century on the nature of God and the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The absence of precise dogmatic formulations before the first millennium is no more an argument against the Real Presence then the precise Trinitarian formulations of Nicaea and Constantinople 1 are for the doctrines of the Trinity and divinity of Christ. Yet Protestants who deny the Real Presence argue against it with the same types of arguments that Jehovahs Witnesses use to deny the Trinity (Ecc. 1:10). This fact alone should cause our Protestant brethren to sit up and take serious notice as to the arbitrary nature of their theology on these matters (and several other areas I could mention). I wish at this time to address a small note to my Evangelical-Reformed-Fundamentalist brethren on this matter (because I know the themes I covering in this essay are literally light years removed from what they have believed and been taught). My brethren, you need to believe the clear evidences of Scripture taken literally on this matter (and virtually all matters). You need to understand that your paradigm is an artificial man-made tradition bereft of understanding of the 3 core threads of Christendom (Covenantalism, Hebraism, Incarnationalism). My brethren, you need to believe what all of Christendom for the first 1500 years affirmed unanimously. The evidence against your non-realist, anti-incarnational, anti-Hebraic viewpoint is overwhelming. To support your positions involves having to explain away the literal import of Scripture (including the literal words of Our Lord and Saviour) not to mention the united testimony of 1500 years of Christendom. Why do you seek to make void the Word of God for the sake of your man-made traditions (Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:6-9; Mark 7:6-7)??? Why do you claim to believe in Jesus Christ if you explain away His literal words because they are "a hard saying" and "who can hear them"??? Have you no sense of appreciation for the concept of mystery??? Have you no appreciation or conception of faith which requires belief in what cannot be proven??? I cannot prove that the Eucharist is Christs Body and Blood nor can I explain how He does what He does except in the most sketchy of outlines. This is no small admission though because I cannot explain the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union either. I cannot explain how the Father has eternally begotten the Son or how Jesus Christ as the Son is just as old as His Father. We cannot explain a lot of these concepts nor can they be proven beyond any shadow of doubt. However, in another example of Protestant inconsistency and arbitrariness they insist that we do just this for doctrines they deny when it is not possible to do this with the doctrines they accept. Can anything be more ridiculous then such a demand as this??? It is typical of Protestants to ask Catholics for more proof for the doctrines where they dissent from the Catholic Church (Real Presence, Apostolic Succession, Papal Primacy/Infallibility, Purgatory, the OT canon, etc.) then exists for doctrines that they do believe (and which are much more weakly attested to in antiquity) like the Trinity or the inspiration of 1/4 of the NT books (or Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide which have ZERO evidence in both Scripture and antiquity). Even the existence of God cannot be proven

to the extent that Protestants (especially Reformed Protestants who are particularly insistent in these matters) expect of Catholic doctrines or distinctives. There is always a POSSIBILITY that there is another way of understanding a position or of viewing the evidence favouring a certain stand. POSSIBILITIES though without compelling evidences to support them are worthless. The reason is simple: virtually anything is "possible." That includes that everything I am presenting in this essay and writing is erroneous also. It is also possible that no human has ever had a rational thought in all of history. The most important question is this: how far do we want to take such assertions and at what point do we say enough is enough??? And of course if we DO stop at a certain point then what is our rationale for stopping at that point??? I hope it is becoming obvious why I have no use for forms of apologetic that seek to engage in "mutually assured destruction" which seems like the common approach taken by Reformed apologists. I will simply save the degeneration into agnostic blather by stating at this point that yes, it is POSSIBLE that I am wrong. However, just because something is POSSIBLE does not mean that it is PROBABLE. Despite everything I have presented in this essay (which is merely the tip of the iceberg really), there is still the POSSIBILITY that: I am wrong That the Fathers were unanimously in error. That the truth about the Eucharist was made known at the beginning but then all records of this position were destroyed.

Yes these are POSSIBLE but how PROBABLE are they really??? How PROBABLE is it that: The Catholic Church persecuted a small group of "true Christians" and destroyed every trace of their existence while The Gnostics, Arians, Monophysites, Waldenses, and every other group that the Catholic Church opposed (which generally existed for a few centuries at most and then vanished) left behind writings and evidences of their beliefs but This little group (which was the "true Church") did not leave ANY evidence of their existence despite being around (supposedly) for 15 centuries???

Again it is POSSIBLE but how PROBABLE is it to be true??? There could be other life-forms in our galaxy or on Mars too but what are the odds??? God could actually not exist too, this is POSSIBLE but considering the complex factors involved in the running of our universe how PROBABLE is it to be true??? How do such assertions square with the historical records we do have and how does this vision of Christianity match Our Lords reference to the Church as "the light of the world" eminating from "a city on the hill which cannot be hidden" (Matt. 5:14)??? It does not match Our Lords description at all. My evidence in this essay and the witness of the Fathers could POSSIBLY be all wrong but again what are the odds of this??? What is especially worth considering is that there is virtually NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for the Evangelical position before the 16th century (not to mention that the Evangelical position consists of explaining away the literal words of Our Lord in the Gospels to hold to this view). Cardinal Newman noted this profound difficulty of reconciling Protestantism with history and explained it in the following manner: "Let them consider that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. It

might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is no great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism as a whole feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it. It is shown by the long neglect of ecclesiastical history in England, which prevails even in the English Church. OUR POPULAR RELIGION SCARCELY RECOGNIZES THE FACT OF THE TWELVE LONG AGES WHICH LIE BETWEEN THE COUNCIS OF NICAEA AND TRENT, EXCEPT AS AFFORDING ONE OR TWO PASSAGES TO ILLUSTRATE ITS WILD INTERPRETATIONS OF CERTAIN PROPHECIES OF ST. PAUL AND ST. JOHN. It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiastical historian is the unbeliever Gibbon. To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. And this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, WHETHER THE LATTER BE REGARDED IN ITS EARLIER OR IN ITS LATER CENTURIES. PROTESTANTS CAN AS LITTLE BEAR ITS ANTENICENE [pre-325 AD] AS ITS POST-TRIDENTINE PERIOD [post-1563 AD]. "So much must the Protestant grant, that if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that 'when they rose in the morning' her true seed 'were all dead eorpses'- Nay dead and buried- and without gravestone. 'The waters went over them; there was not one of them left; they sunk like lead in the mighty waters.' Strange antitype, indeed, to the early fortunes of Israel!- then the enemy was drowned, and 'Israel saw them dead upon the sea shore.' But now, it would seem, water proceeded as a flood 'out of the serpent's mouth,' and covered all the witnesses, so that not even their dead bodies lay in the streets of the great city.' LET HIM TAKE WHICH OF HIS DOCTRINES HE WILL, his peculiar view of self-righteousness, of formality, of superstition; HIS NOTION OF FAITH, or of spirituality in religious worship; HIS DENIAL OF THE VIRTUE OF THE SACRAMENTS, OR OF THE MINISTERIAL COMMISSION, OR OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH; OR HIS DOCTRINE OF THE DIVINE EFFICACY OF THE SCRIPTURES AS THE ONE APPOINTED INSTRUMENT OF RELIGIOUS TEACHING; AND LET HIM CONSIDER HOW FAR ANTIQUITY, AS IT HAS COME DOWN TO US, WILL COUNTENANCE HIM IN IT. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has done its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been swallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless." [Church of the Fathers [Hist. Sketches, vol. i. p. 418].] That Protestantism, then, is not the Christianity of history, it is easy to determine, but to retort is a poor reply in controversy to a question of fact, and whatever be the violence or the exaggeration of writers like Chillingworth, if they have raised a real difficulty, it may claim a real answer, and we must determine whether on the one hand Christianity is still to represent to us a definite teaching from above, or whether on the other its utterances have been from time to time so strangely at variance that we are necessarily thrown back on our own judgment individually to determine what the revelation of God is, or rather if in fact there is, or has been, any revelation at all. [John Henry Newman: Excerpt from "An Essay on the

Development of Christian Doctrine"] There is a reason why Apostolic Christians appeal to history and it is because Christianity is a historical religion. It HAS to be since the very focal point of our faith (the Incarnation, Teachings, Death, and Ressurection of the God-man Jesus Christ) took place 20 centuries ago. Thus there HAS to be a historical element to the Christian revelation and the longer what was delivered "one and for all to the saints" (Jude 1:3) is pondered, the greater the insights that are drawn from that Apostolic well. The concept is called Development of Doctrine and that is what the notion of "transubstantiation" (often confused for the doctrine of the Real Presence by Protestant apologists) is: a development in the UNDERSTANDING of the ancient doctrine of the Real Presence. In the case of "transubstantiation" it was a term developed and accepted as the proper way to describe the change from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord at Mass which occurs when the priest utters the words of consecration. The Church has done this from the very beginning with terms like "Trinity", "homoousian", "latria/dulia", and "transubstantiation." These are later terms coined to more clarify the ancient faith in response to different heresies. In the case of "transubstantiation" it was coined after Berengarius committed the heresy of denying that the bread and wine after Consecration were really the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Since this happened for the first time in the 11th century (Berengarius lived between 1033 and 1088), it is not possible to find the word used before the heresy it was coined to combat had arisen. However, the concept is tied to the ancient belief of the Real Presence which CAN be demonstrated from the earliest of days and with MUCH greater success then the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a subtle but significant distinction which Protestant apologists are seemingly incapable of making. It is probably because this paradigm is so diametrically opposed to the way they are accustomed to looking at theological matters. Hopefully in this essay I have been able to clarify many of these points viz. The Real Presence so that the Catholic position (the overwhelmingly biblical and historical one) is better understood by my Protestant brethren. Part VI - Final Notes The Catholic Church first used "transubstantiation" formally at the General Council of IV Lateran in 1215 (under Pope Innocent III) as the official position of the Church. Later on at the Council of Trent (1545-1563, the term was solemnly defined. The Eastern Churches also believe in "transubstantiation" as a concept albeit they are not particularly fond of the word itself. Anglicans and Lutherans believe in "consubstantiation." The reason for this split is to a large part (indirectly) because of Berengarius denial. Although Berengarius eventually subscribed to a formulary drawn up by Pope Gregory VII (that emphasized in strong and uncompromising terms the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist), shortly afterwards the Church begin contemplating exactly HOW the transformation of the elements actually took place (but not that they DID change mind you). The reason for this was to formulate a doctrine to protect against against a re-emergence of what had just happened. In the process, two positions became subject to debate: "consubstantiation" and "transubstantiation." The Church settled on "transubstantiation": a term which according to Dr. Ludwig Ott was coined in the 12th century [approximately 1150] by the theologian Magister Roland (who later on became Pope Alexander III). All "transubstantiation" means in essence is that after the consecration at Mass, the Lord Jesus becomes really present in the Eucharist in His entirety Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity with the only remains of the actual bread and wine being their outward appearances. "Consubstantiation" is the belief that Jesus Christ is really present Body and Soul in the Eucharistic elements and that He is both in and under the bread and wine which at the same time retains the substance of bread and wine conjoined in some manner to the substance of Our Lords Body. To argue against either of these terms is for the Protestant apologist to not only miss the boat but to not even be in the harbour where the boat disembarked to begin with. The argument for or against the Real Presence though does not swing on whether the Fathers

believed in "transubstantiation" or if they believed in "consubstantiation" (since there is no way to determine a consensus on either point: many of the Fathers seem to have expressed both views depending on the topic or circumstances of the time). The argument was (and is) over HOW it happens because that the bread and wine actually BECOMES the Body and Blood of Christ of this there is 100% affirmation in the Fathers of the Church. Despite arguing about precise formularies of the transformation itself, Catholics, the Eastern Churches, Anglicans, and Lutherans ALL profess a belief in the realist view of the Eucharist: that when Our Lord said "you must eat my flesh and drink my blood" in John 6 (and His words at the Last Supper "this IS my Body" and this IS my Blood") that He is to be taken literally. This in fact was one of Luther and Zwinglis biggest arguing points at the Marbury conference of 1529. Zwingli argued against the Real Presence with recourse to John 6:63 and used the same faulty arguments I refuted earlier. Luther turned to the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and pointed to Our Lords words this is my Body and said (in essence) "see it is right here in our Scripture" in his arguments favouring the Real Presence. Luthers position between the two was the position that most squares with antiquity on this matter in terms of what the Eucharist was. His cardinal error though was in misunderstanding the Hebraic concept of a sacrificial memorial (and thus he did not believe a priest was necessary for the transformation of the elements into the Body and Blood of Our Lord to be offered in sacrifice to God). As the Fathers taught in one united voice on this manner without one dissenting voice, Our Lord is seen as transforming (through the words of his priest) the bread and wine into precisely what He said they were: His Body and Blood. However, they are in the form of a sacramentum (mystery): thus the "spiritual" means He was referring to in John 6 to the disbelieving Jews that they were unable to comprehend. As I noted earlier, to Catholics and the Eastern Churches (and also Anglicans) the words "do this in remembrance of me" (anamnesis) denotes a form of living memorial much like the Passover among the Jews and refers to Our Lord giving this power of consecration to His Apostles (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-26) who would pass on their priestly functions to chosen successors in a perpetual line for all time (see Matt. 28:19-20; John 20:20-23; Acts 2; 1 Tim. 5:22; Titus 1:5). This is the foundation of the Apostolic position and there is no evidence of anyone holding the Evangelical-Reformed view before the time of Berengarius in the 11th century (except the heretics of course) and this view was one that after Berengarius only resurfaced again for the most part during the so-called "reformation." There are far more examples among the Fathers then just the ones I presented in part 3 but they are sufficient to make my case from antiquity while I await a suitable positive counter-position to what I have written. Let me repeat myself here: I await a suitable counter-position to be offered and NOT just a critique of this essay where the proponent undertakes the common "poke holes in my argument seeking to win by default" methodology so common to Protestantism (especially Reformed Protestant apologists). If that is all anyone who critiques this essay does then they only underscore the weakness of their position and frankly I am not impressed with such tactics. I do not care about what is POSSIBLE but instead what is PROBABLE. Which of the following two assertions is the one that is the most PROBABLE???: A united witness throughout Christian history (the view of a realist Real Presence that takes Our Lords words in the Gospels literally) or A novel view that was seen nowhere for the first 11 centuries and was virtually non-existent after that for another 5 centuries until a few people like Calvin, Bucer, and Zwingli started proclaiming that everyone before them (including Luther interestingly enough) was wrong (the view of a symbolic presence that seeks to explain away Our Lords literal words in the Gospels). If you say #1 then excellent you have made the logical choice considering the abundance of evidence both concerning taking Our Lords words literally, the far greater likelihood of interpreting John 6 in a literal manner (considering proper Greek protocol), and of course the unanimous witness of the Fathers.

If you choose to explain away Our Lords literal words, go against ALL the grammar conventions for interpreting John 6 (even interpreting figuratively Greek words that are never used as such), and make the further claim that everyone for the first 15 centuries was in error, then you are by default choosing #2. If the latter is the case, then you really need to ponder the words of the Apostle Paul which I quoted at the start of this essay: "If we or an angel from heaven preach to you a Gospel other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema, I SAID IT BEFORE AND I SAY IT AGAIN, IF ANYONE PREACHES TO YOU A GOSPEL OTHER THAN THAT WHICH WE HAVE PREACHED TO YOU, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA." The bottom line is this and there is no way around it: If you accept proposition #2 as noted above (the Evangelical-Reformed view of the Eucharist), then the condemnation of the Apostle Paul from Galatians 1:8-9 --- the curse that he proclaimed in no uncertain terms --- applies to you for holding a different Gospel then the one preached by the Apostles (including Paul) and handed down through the Church since Pentecost. I have demonstrated throughout this essay on numerous levels why this option is not possible for the true "Bible Christian" to hold. Repent and accept Our Lords words as He said and meant them. Only then can you truly have life in Him (John 6:53). "If in this world there be any knowledge of this sacrament stronger than that of faith, I wish now to use it in affirming that I firmly believe and know as certain that Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Son of God and Son of the Virgin Mary, is in this Sacrament . . . I receive Thee, the price of my redemption, for Whose love I have watched, studied, and laboured. Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee: if anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous concerning this sacrament or other matters, I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life." [The Last Words of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)]

from http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist.htm

The Early Church Fathers Speak about the Eucharist: The Body and Blood of Christ Development of Eucharistic Understanding There is mystery in the natural world around all around us as the great scientist Einstein once observed and this is certainly also the case with religion and especially Christianity, beginning with the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Christs gift to us of Himself in what we call the Eucharist [from the Greek word meaning "thanksgiving" and sometimes referred to as Holy Communion] is such a mystery of faith. To see them, we need as St. Paul says, eyes of faith, remembering that we must walk by faith, not by sight through Gods mysteries (Rom12: 6-7) but never fearing that faith and reason are brothers in Gods creation. Like Father James T. OConnor, from whose work The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist much of this manuscript is drawn, I would like to repeat with Chesterton that the theme of the Eucharist is so wonderful that we must take a risk in offering our praise. The first full treatise on the Holy Eucharist was not produced until 9th century, however, the writings of the Early Church Fathers have frequent mention of it. This essay will attempt to survey only a small measure of their content to give you some sense of the development of the doctrine of the Eucharistthat is, the Churchs understanding of this great mystery.

One of the earliest Christian documents is the Didache, known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which probably dates from the 1st century. Sections 9 and 10 deal with the Eucharist [Gk. Eucharistias] and prayers of thanks which allude to the Mass. It contains this warning, "... let noone eat or drink of this Eucharist unless he has been baptized in the name of the Lord [a shorthand way of alluding to the Trinity]; for concerning this the Lord also said: Do not give to the dogs what is holy." Perhaps alluding to St. Pauls epistle to the Corinthians, in part 14 it notes: "And on the Lords day, gather together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins so that your sacrifice might be pure. This is clearly an illusion to the prophecy of Malachi (Mal 1:11), which our next Father also addresses. St. Clement of Rome was the third successor of Peter the Apostle as bishop of Rome, our fourth Pope. St. Irenaeus (Book III, iii) tells us that Clement "saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught by the Apostles. " Similarly Epiphanius tells us that Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul. There is a tradition that he was ordained by St. Peter and acted as a kind of auxiliary bishop to Linus and Anacletus, his predecessors in the papal chair. His letter to the Corinthians was written between 70-96 A.D. in an effort to restore peace to the Church at Corinith, Greece, which has broken into factions and was intent upon firing some of their presbyters. The epistle, which is written in Greek, is important because of the distinction it makes between leaders of the community and the faithful. Clement refers to the leaders as presbyters or bishops, without making any further distinction, referring specifically to their ministry as the "offering of gifts." He says, "Our sin will not be light if we expel those who worthily and blamelessly have offered the gifts of the episcopacy." This is clearly liturgical language in light of Mt 5:23 and Lv.1: 2 and Lv 7:38, referring in this instance to the Eucharistic sacrifice offered by priests in the Mass. St. Ignatius of Antioch was a pagan by birth and a Syrian. He became the third bishop of Antioch and may be considered an apostolic Father in the sense that he heard the Apostle John preach. About 110 A.D. he was sentenced to a martyr's death in the arena by the Emperor Trajan, who also put Pope Clement to death. On the almost 1000 mile journey to Rome from Antioch, Syria, the third largest city of the Empire, Ignatius wrote seven letters, which are his only surviving letters. They are addressed to Christian communities he presided over as bishop. He speaks of the Eucharistic mystery in mystical terms saying, "Therefore arm yourselves with gentleness, renew yourselves in faith, which is the Flesh of the Lord, and in charity, which is the Blood of Jesus Christ." His most famous passage says: I am Gods grain, and I am being ground by the teeth of wild beasts in order that I may be found [to be] pure bread for Christ. My love has been crucified, and there is in me no fire of material love, but rather a living water, speaking in me and saying within me, Come to the Father. I take no pleasure in corruptible food or in the delights of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who is the seed of David; and for drink I want his Blood which is incorruptible love. His reference to "bread of God" is an allusion to John 6: 33, where Jesus says, "It is not Moses who has given you bread from heaven [manna], but it is my Father who gives you the Bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." The Eucharist was a model for the Christ centered approach of Ignatius since he sees the it as an example of the "undying love of Christ as he feeds us with his Flesh and Blood." There is no mistaking his tone in his letter to the Church at Smyrna as he speaks of the Gnostics who had a disdain for material reality: Charity is no concern to them, nor are widows and orphans or the oppressed . . .They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised . . .

Like St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 10: 17, he saw the Eucharistic Body of our Lord as the unifying force in the Church. He wrote the Philadelphians: Be careful to observe [only] one Eucharist; for there is only one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup of union with his Blood, one altar of sacrifice, as [there is] one bishop with the presbyters and my fellow-servants the deacons. Another unforgettable reference is when he urges Christians to assemble in common and obey the bishop, "breaking one bread that is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against dying that offers life for all in Jesus Christ." These beautiful words sum up Jesus own teaching in John 6 and St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. Notice also that he refers to the Eucharist as a sacrifice as did the authors of the Didache. Eucharistic theology seems almost complete in St. Ignatius. St. Justin Martyr who also gave his life for Christ, as his name implies. His Apologies are considered the most important of the 2d century Christian writings of the Fathers of the Early Church. It is difficult not to identify his testimony with an early version of the Catholic Mass, the president or presider being a priest [presbyteros being the Greek root for our English word priest] as he speaks of the Eucharist about 155 A.D.: For we do not receive these as common bread and common drink; but just as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have learned that the food over which thanks has been given by the prayer of the word which comes from him, [see 1 Cor 11: 23-26; Lk 22; 19] and by which are blood and flesh are nourished through a change, is the Flesh and Blood of the same incarnate Jesus. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew he writes about the pure sacrifice mentioned by the prophet Malachi once again. The message is that the Eucharist has "replaced the sacrifices of the Temple in Jerusalem" just as Malachi prophesied. The Fathers often used this text to demonstrate the sacrificial nature of the offering [of the Eucharist at Mass]. St. Irenaeus who heard the preaching of Bishop Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, writing a famous tract Against Heresies between 180 and 190 A.D. is the first to provide explicit mention of the change that takes place in the bread and wine when they become the Eucharist. The earthly creation (bread and wine) are raised to a heavenly dignity after they "receive the word of God" [at the epiclesis of the Mass or the invocation to the Holy Spirit] and become the food and drink of Christians. So how then can we doubt that, "Our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible but have the hope of resurrection to eternal life." St. Hilary of Poitiers (died in 368 A.D.) in his his De Trinitate said that the Eucharist made the Church Christs Body and allows us to become one with the Father. St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogic Catechesis, a series of sermons dated to the late 4th century, is the first to make clear that the Real Presence is made possible by a changing of the substance of the elements, though the word "transubstantiation" was not yet used. He wrote: In the Old Covenant there were loaves of proposition [the bread of the presence], but they being of the Old Covenant, have come to an end. In the New Covenant there is a heavenly bread and a cup of salvation that sanctify the body and soul. For as the bread exists for the body, so the Word is in harmony with the soul. Therefore, do not consider them as bare bread and wine; for according to the declaration of

the Master, they are Body and Blood. If even the senses suggest this to you [viz. that they are only bread and wine], let faith reassure you. Do not judge the reality by taste but, having full assurance from faith, realize that you have been judged worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ. Writing in 350 A.D. Theodore of Mospsuestia, in Homily XV wrote of communion in the hand, "do not approach with hands extended and fingers open wide. Rather make of your left hand a throne for your right as it is about to receive your King, and receive the Body of Christ in the fold of your hand, responding Amen..... Take care that you do not even lose one piece of that which is more precious than gold or precious stones." St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote The Great Catechism in the 370's and is important in our survey because he endeavors to explain the mystery of how Christ can remain whole while being distributed to thousands of Christians with an analogy. The union of the divine and the human in Christ sanctified his humanity. When he consumed bread and wine they to were united with His divine person. So now in the Eucharist, he assimilates the bread and the wine into Himself and then feed us what has become Himself through the Word. He said this occurred at the Consecration.

http://anglicanhistory.org/nashotah/larrabee/sacra4.html CHAPTER IV. THE HOLY EUCHARIST. "Give us this day our daily Bread." The application of the fourth petition to the Sacrament of the Altar is too evident to need any explanation. It has from the beginning been used by devout souls, -with this primary reference to that Heavenly Food, "the Bread which cometh down from Heaven," and S. Jerome's Latin version even gives us as the translation of the words we render "daily bread," panem supersubstantialem, or, as we would say, "supernatural" Bread. Let us notice the place which this petition occupies, midway in the prayer. It is the central petition as the Holy Eucharist is the centre of the sacramental system, "the Tree of Life in the midst of the Paradise of God." Every other mystery in the Kingdom of grace has its place with reference to this chief Sacrament. Baptism and Confirmation prepare us for It and look to Its reception; the highest privilege and the crowning glory of the Priesthood is Its consecration; Penance and Unction cleanse the soul that it may worthily approach It, while Marriage is the mystery of that union of Christ and His Church, which the Holy Eucharist consummates. The pre-eminence of the Holy Eucharist over all other Sacraments is seen in this, that whereas other Sacraments Confer upon us some particular grace as applying the merits of Christ, this gives us Christ Himself, in Whose Person all the treasures of grace are stored. Compare the Holy Eucharist with the other great Sacrament, as they are both defined in the Catechism, and the pre-eminence will appear. First, a Sacrament is defined as "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace;" then this definition is applied to Holy Baptism and to the Holy Eucharist in turn. As applied to Holy Baptism only two questions need to be asked as regards the Sacrament: first, "What is the outward visible sign or form in Baptism?" second, "What is the inward and Spiritual grace?" These two questions draw out a complete definition of the Sacrament of Baptism. But when the general definition of a Sacrament is applied to the Holy Eucharist, two questions are not enough to elicit a full definition. The Catechism inquires, as before, as to the outward part or sign, and as to the benefits or the Spiritual grace conveyed, but a third question is necessary to draw oat as distinct, both from the outward form and the Spiritual' grace, the inward part or Thing itself of the Sacrament, namely, "the Body and Blood of Christ which are spiritually taken and received by the faithful in the

LORD'S Supper "

CONFESSION
Leviticus 5:5 " 'When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned Numbers 5:5-7 'When a man or woman wrongs another in any way and so is unfaithful to the LORD , that person is guilty and must confess the sin he has committed. " Jn 20:23 "Receive the Holy Spirit.Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

PURGATORY
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

I. A State After Death of Suffering and Forgiveness Matt. 5:25,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 - these verses allude to a temporary state of purgation called a "prison." There is no exit until we are perfect, and the last penny is paid. Matt. 5:48 - Jesus says, "be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect." We are only made perfect through purification, and in Catholic teaching, this purification, if not completed on earth, is continued in a state we call purgatory. Matt. 12:32 - Jesus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for more than 2,000 years has called this state purgatory. Luke 12:47-48 - when the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will will no longer live with the Master. Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory. 1 Cor. 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, to atone for their sins. These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. Phil. 2:10 - every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and "under the earth" which is the realm of the righteous dead, or purgatory. 2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him. But there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory. Heb. 12:14 - without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed, in the state of purgatory. Heb. 12:23 - the spirits of just men who died in godliness are "made" perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits were in purgatory. 1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the "prison." These are the righteous souls being

purified for the beatific vision. Rev. 21:4 - God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. These are the souls experiencing purgatory. Rev. 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven. Even the propensity to sin is uncleanliness. It is amazing how many Protestants do not want to believe in purgatory. Purgatory exists because of the mercy of God. If there were no purgatory, this would also likely mean no salvation for most people. God is merciful indeed. Gen. 50:10; Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8 - here are some examples of ritual prayer and penitent mourning for the dead for specific periods of time. The Jewish understanding of these practices was that the prayers freed the souls from their painful state of purificatioin, and expedited their journey to God. Baruch 3:4 - Baruch asks the Lord to hear the prayers of the dead of Israel. Prayers for the dead are unnecessary in heaven and unnecessary in hell. These dead are in purgatory. Zech. 9:11 - God, through the blood of His covenant, will set those free from the waterless pit, a spiritual abode of suffering which the Church calls purgatory. 2 Macc. 12:43-45 - the prayers for the dead help free them from sin and help them to the reward of heaven. Those in heaven have no sin, and those in hell can no longer be freed from sin. They are in purgatory. Luther was particularly troubled with these verses because he rejected the age-old teaching of purgatory. As a result, he removed Maccabees from the canon of the Bible. II. Purification After Death By Fire Heb. 12:29 - God is a consuming fire (of love in heaven, of purgation in purgatory, or of suffering and damnation in hell). 1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation). 1 Cor. 3:15 - Paul says though he will be saved, "but only" through fire. The phrase "but only" in the Greek is "houtos" which means "in the same manner." This means that man is both rewarded and saved by fire. 1 Cor. 3:15 - when Paul teaches that those whose work is burned up will suffer loss, the phrase for "suffer loss" in the Greek is "zemiothesetai." The root word is "zemioo" which also refers to punishment. This means that there is an expiation of temporal punishment after our death, which cannot mean either heaven (no need for it) or hell (expiation no longer exists). 1 Cor. 3:13 - when Paul writes about God revealing the quality of each man's work by fire and purifying him, this purification relates to his sins (not just his good works). Protestants, in attempting to disprove the reality of purgatory, argue that Paul was only writing about rewarding good works, and not punishing sins (because punishing and purifying a man from sins would be admitting that there is a purgatory).

1 Cor. 3:17 - but this verse proves that the purgation after death deals with punishing sin. That is, destroying God's temple is a bad work, which is a mortal sin, which leads to death. 1 Cor. 3:14,15,17 - purgatory thus reveals the state of righteousness (v.14), state of venial sin (v.15) and the state of mortal sin (v.17). 1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter refers to this purgatorial fire to test the fruits of our faith. Jude 1:23 - the people who are saved are being snatched out of the fire. People are already saved if in heaven, and there is no possibility of salvation if in hell. These people are being led to heaven from purgatory. Rev. 3:18-19 - Jesus refers to this fire as what refines into gold those He loves if they repent of their sins. Dan 12:10 - Daniel refers to this refining by saying many shall purify themselves, make themselves white and be refined. Wis. 3:5-6 - the dead are disciplined and tested by fire to receive their heavenly reward. Sirach 2:5 - for gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation. Zech. 13:8-9 - God says 2/3 shall perish, and 1/3 shall be left alive, put into the fire, and refined like silver and tested like gold. Mal. 3:2-3 - also refers to God's purification of the righteous at their death. ---------------------Luke 12: 47-48 47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day 7 will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. 14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, 8 but only as through fire. 2 Corinthians 3:18 All of us, gazing with unveiled face on the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord who is the Spirit Hebrews 12: 22-23 22 No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering, 23 and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, 6 and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just man made perfect

MARY WAS ALWAYS A VIRGIN


from http://www.orthodoxonline.com/ever_virginity.htm A brief study regarding the Ever-Virginity of Mary, the Theotokos (God-bearer) This question was asked at Bible study: "Doesn't Matthew 1:25 say that Joseph did not know Mary until she had born a son? That pretty much implies that they had sexual relations afterwards, doesn't it?" It is first of all important to remember that Mary and Joseph were only betrothed, not married. (Notice in Matthew 1:18b, for example the NRSV[1] says "engaged" NIV says "pledged to be married" and NKJV says "betrothed.") In the Jewish tradition, betrothal lasts for a year and was legally binding. There is no mention in the original Greek that they were ever married. Thus, the Church had always taught that the fact that they were never married is further evidence that there was no physical sexual relationship. The specific passage in question: Matthew 1:25a "...but he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." (NIV) "...but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; (NRSV) "...and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." (NKJV) But first, a word about "firstborn" Many ancient texts include the word "firstborn" (proto-tokon) According to the Orthodox Study Bible, "firstborn" means having been born first, and never implies the birth of others. It is common in scripture and ancient writings to show that something is the only using the word first in order to emphasize pre-eminence, elevation or honor. Here are some cross references using the same Greek word to illustrate this: See Isaiah 44:5 - I am God, the First, and with Me there is no other See Psalm 88:27 - I will set Him firstborn high among the kings of the earth According to St. Cyril of Alexandria: "To show that the Virgin did not bring forth a mere man, there is added the word firstborn, for as she continued to be a Virgin, she had no other son but Him who is of the Father. And now, a brief study of the concept of "until" as used in Matthew 1:25a "...but he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son." (NIV) "...but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; (NRSV) "...and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." (NKJV) The Greek word most often translated as "until" is eos (pronounced a-o-s), and is negated by ouk at the beginning of the phrase, meaning "not."

The modern-day meaning of the word "until" might lead us to think that Joseph "did not know her until..." but that he did afterwards. However, the biblical usage is quite different. In ancient and biblical usage, the word eos is used to designate a "boundary formed by a historical event."[2] The Greek conjunction eos (till), like the Hebrew ad-ki and the Latin donec, while expressing what has occurred up to a certain period, leaves the future entirely aside"[3] Here are some cross references to illustrate that ouk...eos it more accurately translated as "not until this important event, but still not after" (i.e. never.) 1) Note Luke 2:36-37, the story of Christ's Presentation at the Temple. The verse describes Anna the prophetess as having lived with her husband for 7 years after their marriage, and then, "she has lived as a widow until (eos) ." At the time of The Presentation of Christ she is still a widow, and will continue to be so after this. The "boundary" historical event is the Presentation of Christ. 2) Another good example of this is Acts 8:40. The verse says "Phillip.... traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until (eos) he reached Caesarea" (NIV) Did Phillip the deacon preach the gospel after he reached Caesarea? Of course he did. The "boundary" historical event is Phillip the deacon's arrival in Caesarea and the word eos is used to denote the importance of this event. He preached before, until this significant event, and still after. 3) Another example is Matthew 24:21, where the use of the word (eos) as having an action as continuing into the future is actually clarified in the text: "then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until (eos) now and never to be equaled again." This great distress has not been seen until now, and still, will never be seen again. 4) See John 5:17. Jesus is speaking: "My Father is always at work to (eos) this very day, and I, too am working." (NIV) or "My Father has been working until (eos) now..."(NKJV) "My Father is still working, (eos) and I also am working." Clearly Jesus did not mean that His Father was working only until that very day, but still. Jesus' presence on earth was a "boundary" historical event. The Father worked until that day, and still afterwards. 5) other examples: Genesis 8.7 "Noah...sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro till the waters were dried up from the earth." Psalm 110.1 "the Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool." See also Isaiah 22.15, Matt 12.20, 1 Tim 4.13, Psalm 90.2, Psalm 72.7 Finally, back to Matthew 1:25a, the birth of Mary's Firstborn Son is a "boundary" historical event. In the same sense as the examples above, Joseph did not know Mary before the birth, but also after this watershed event of the birth of the Messiah. Believe it or not, it is not difficult to argue (using only modern Biblical exegetical methods) that the position of the Orthodox Church of the Ever-Virginity of Mary is true. However the most significant argument in this discussion is not the Biblical evidence, but that it has simply always been the teaching of the Church. Any contradictory views were always considered heretical. This alternate view did not gain momentum until after the Protestant reformation, after which many of the foundational tenets of orthodox Christianity, and especially anything which appeared "Popish" (or Roman Catholic) had been thrown out entirely.

From The Virgin Mary, Theotokos by Rev. George Mastrantonis

The Ever-Virginity is not a miraculous act but an attitude. The virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus Christ was not a miraculous act of God; it was merely her preference for the rest of her life. It would have been impossible for her to have considered the virgin birth as a "sign" of the birth of the Messiah and then to have neglected its importance to her. The sacred writers took her condition and attitude for granted. Moreover, they were not writing about her, nor even a full biography of Jesus Christ; therefore, they did not dwell on things which were known to the Church and had no direct bearing on salvation. The early Church seems to have held the perpetual virginity of Mary as a treasure of human attitude. Later, when it was attacked, the Church as a whole expressed its strong conviction in her perpetual virginity as a fact and not as an after-though or a sequence. Only a man of strong prejudice against the Virgin Mary's personal physical attitude will interpret and deny the face of her ever virginity which had been accepted for 18 centuries.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary All of the early Protestant Founders accepted the truth of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. How could this be, if it is merely "tradition" with no scriptural basis? Why was its supposed violation of Scripture not so obvious to them, as it is to the Protestants of the last 150 years or so (since the onset of theological liberalism) who have ditched this previously-held opinion? Yet it has become fashionable to believe that Jesus had blood brothers (I suspect, because this contradicts Catholic teaching), contrary to the original consensus of the early Protestants. Let's see what the Founders of Protestantism taught about this doctrine. If Catholics are so entrenched in what has been described as "silly," "desperate," "obviously false," "unbiblical tradition" here, then so are many Protestant luminaries such as Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. Strangely enough, however, current-day Protestant critics of Catholicism rarely aim criticism at them. I guess the same "errors" are egregious to a different degree, depending on who accepts and promulgates them -- sort of like the Orwellian proverb from Animal Farm: "all people are equal, but some are more equal than others." General Whatever may be the position theologically that one may take today on the subject of Mariology, one is not able to call to one's aid 'reformed tradition' unless one does it with the greatest care . . . the Marian doctrine of the Reformers is consonant with the great tradition of the Church in all the essentials and with that of the Fathers of the first centuries in particular . . . . . In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity . . . {Max Thurian (Protestant), Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville B. Cryer, NY: Herder & Herder, 1963 (orig. 1962), pp. 77, 197} The title 'Ever Virgin' (aeiparthenos, semper virgo) arose early in Christianity . . . It was a stock phrase in the Middle Ages and continued to be used in Protestant confessional writings (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Andrewes; Book of Concord [1580], Schmalkaldic Articles [1537]).

{Raymond E. Brown et al, ed., Mary in the New Testament, Phil.: Fortress Press / NY: Paulist Press, 1978, p.65 (a joint Catholic-Protestant effort) } Mary was formally separated from Protestant worship and prayer in the 16th century; in the 20th century the divorce is complete. Even the singing of the 'Magnificat' caused the Puritans to have scruples, and if they gave up the Apostles' Creed, it was not only because of the offensive adjective 'Catholic', but also because of the mention of the Virgin . . . [But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's commands. {J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6} Martin Luther Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. {Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) } Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. {Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) } A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) } Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. {Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) } Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds: Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary. {Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

John Calvin Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. {Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55} [On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107} Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) } Huldreich Zwingli He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . . 'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary. {G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522} Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.' {Thurian, ibid., p.76} I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. {Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon} Heinrich Bullinger Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false

Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . . 'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.' {In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5} John Wesley (Founder of Methodism) I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.

THE BROTHERS OF JESUS


Catholic Encyclopedia The Brethren of the Lord A group of persons closely connected with the Saviour appears repeatedly in the New Testament under the designation "his brethren" or "the brethren of the Lord" (Matt 12:46, 13:55; Mark 3:31-32, 6:3; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12, 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; I Cor 9:5). Four such "brethren" are mentioned by name in the parallel texts of Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3 (where "sisters" are also referred to), namely, James (also mentioned Galatians 1:19), Joseph, or Joses, Simon, and Jude; the incidental manner in which these names are given, shows, however, that the list lays no claim to completeness. Two questions in connexion with these "brethren" of the Lord have long been, and are still now more than ever, the subject of controversy: (1) The identity of James, Jude, and Simon; (2) the exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren". (1) The identity of James, Jude and Simon. James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark 15:40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord", St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that the "apostles" is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause "saving James" be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, "James the brother of the Lord" (cf. Acts 9:27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number. Now there were only two Apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus (Matt 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of the events to which Acts 15:6 ssq., and Galatians 2:9-12 refer (cf. Acts 12:2). James "the brother of the Lord" is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. Again, on comparing John 19:25 with Matt 27:56, and Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47; 16:1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Klopas), the sister of Mary the Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses. As married women are not distinguished by the addition of their father's name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the "brethren" of the Lord. The existence among the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the "brethren" of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus. Of Joseph nothing further is known. Jude is the writer of the last of the Catholic Epistles (Jude 1). He is with good reason identified by Catholic commentators with the "Judas Jacobi" ("Jude the brother of James" in the Douay Version) of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, otherwise known as Thaddeus (Matt 10:3;

Mark 3:18). It is quite in accordance with Greek custom for a man to be distinguished by the addition of his brother's name instead of his father's, when the brother was better known. That such was the case with Jude is inferred from the title "the brother of James", by which he designates himself in his Epistle. About Simon nothing certain can be stated. He is identified by most commentators with the Symeon, or Simon, who, according to Hegesippus, was a son of Clopas, and succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem. Some identify him with the Apostle Simon the Cananean (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:18) or the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The grouping together of James, Jude or Thaddeus, and Simon, after the other Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, in the lists of the Apostles, (Matt 10:4-5; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) lends some probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of connexion between the three. Be this as it may, it is certain that at least two of the "brethren" of Christ were among the Apostles. This is clearly implied in 1 Cor 9:5: "Have we not the power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" The mention of Cephas at the end indicates that St. Paul, after speaking of the Apostles in general, calls special attention to the more prominent ones, the "brethren" of the Lord and Cephas. The objection that no "brethren" of the Lord could have been members of the Apostolic college, because six months before Christ's death they did not believe in Him (John 7:3-5), rests on a misunderstanding of the text. His "brethren" believed in his miraculous power, and urged him to manifest it to the world. Their unbelief was therefore relative. It was not a want of belief in His Messiahship, but a false conception of it. They had not yet rid themselves of the Jewish idea of a Messiah who would be a temporal ruler. We meet with this idea among the Apostles as late as the day of the Ascension (Acts 1:6). In any case the expression "his brethren" does not necessarily include each and every "brother", whenever it occurs. This last remark also sufficiently answers the difficulty in Acts 1:13-14, where, it is said, a clear distinction is made between the Apostles and the "brethren" of the Lord. (2) The exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren". The texts cited at the beginning of this article show beyond a doubt that there existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His "brethren". But as "brethren" (or "brother") is applied to step-brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Gen 13:8, 14:14-16; Lev 10:4; 1 Par 15:5-10, 23:21-22), the word furnishes no certain indication of the exact nature of the relationship. Some ancient heretics, like Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites, maintained that the "brethren" of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary. This opinion has been revived in modern times, and is now adopted by most of the Protestant exegetes. On the orthodox side two views have long been current. The majority of the Greek Fathers and Greek writers, influenced, it seems, by the legendary tales of apocryphal gospels, considered the "brethren" of the Lord as sons of St. Joseph by a first marriage. The Latins, on the contrary, with few exceptions (St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours among the Fathers), hold that they were the Lord's cousins. That they were not the sons of Joseph and Mary is proved by the following reasons, leaving out of consideration the great antiquity of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matt 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matt 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His "brethren", or between them and Mary, no plausible argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou,

with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, without the article, would have been the proper expression. The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these "brethren" are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter's cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father's or mother's side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the "sister" of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), but it is uncertain whether "sister" here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the MSS. of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other "brethren" may have been more distant than that of the above named four. The chief objection against the Catholic position is taken from Matt 1:25: "He [Joseph] knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son"; and from Luke 2:7: "And she brought forth her firstborn son". Hence, it is argued, Mary must have born other children. "Firstborn" (prototokos), however, does not necessarily connote that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23, and Ex 13:2-12 (cf. Greek text) to which Luke refers. "Opening the womb" is there given as the equivalent of "firstborn" (prototokos). An only child was thus no less "firstborn" than the first of many. Neither do the words "he knew her not till she brought forth" imply, as St. Jerome proves conclusively against Helvidius from parallel examples, that he knew her afterwards. The meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if they are considered in connexion with the virginal birth related by the two Evangelists --------- oooo --------http://www.iamonetruth.com/brothers_of_jesus.htm

Are "Bretheren" - "Brothers"? In the Septuagint, (the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ), the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek has the narrow meaning that the English word 'brother' has. Greek does have a separate word for 'cousin', anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint favored adelphos, even for true cousins. This same usage was employed by writers of the New Testament and so passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine just what 'bretheren' or 'brother' or 'sister' means in any verse you have to look at the context. John 20:17 Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me: for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren ( adephos ad-el-fos' from 1 (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like 1):--brother.Strong's Bible Dictionary) and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God. (DR) In this v. 17 Jesus tells Mary Magdalene to tell Jesus' brothers about His resurrection. then in v. 18 Mary goes to tell His 'disciples'.

It would have been a real mistake for Mary to tell the disciples first if Jesus really meant His blood brothers, especially considering the extreme importance of the event. In these two verses Jesus clearly equates 'brothers' or 'bretheren' with people close to Him, not siblings. -ooooooJohn 19:26-27, "behold your son...Then He said to the disciple,"Behold your mother." This would have been a grave insult to His real brothers, that is, to give the care of their mother to a non-relative. Catholics know that this was Jesus' way of giving His mother to the Church that he established. Luke 2:1 - 14.7: "... and she gave birth to her firstborn son.": In Mosaic Law the first male child in a family had certain rights and obligations. Luke was pointing out that Jesus had these rights and obligations! Not that Jesus was the first of a large family! NO WHERE IS SCRIPTURE DO WE SEE "THE SONS OF MARY" MENTIONED

-ohttp://www.catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp Catholic Answers the meaning of the Aramaic word for "brother" (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins. In fact, there was no word for "cousin" in Aramaic. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as the son of his uncle (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that dont mean cousin in particular; e.g., ahyana ("kinsman"), qariwa ("close relation"), or nasha ("relative"). One such term is aha, which literally means brother but is also frequently used in the sense of relative, kinsman. The first Christians in Palestine, not having a word for cousin, would normally have referred to whatever cousins Jesus had with such a general term and, in translating their writing or speech into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for brother (adelphos).

THERE WERE THREE OR FOUR MARYS Task- Explain: Matthew 13:55 Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 1- there were two James and none is son of Joseph the husband of Mary: Mathew 10:2-4 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him There are three and maybe four Marys if Mary's sister is also called Mary : John 19:25 Standing by the

cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala (Is his mother's sister the wife of Clopas or the comma indicate two different persons? It is likely she is one person, see next paragraph) Mathew 27 :55-56: Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. mong them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons, So Mary's sister is likely the wife of Clopas: there are at least four women of which at least three are named Mary: the mother of Jesus, Mary of Magdala, Mary the wife of Clopas (also called Alpheus in Mathew 10:4) who is the mother of James and Joses and who may be also Mary's sister, and the mother of Zebedee's sons., who is not mentioned in John but appears in Mathew If Alpheus and Clopas were two different persons then there would be another woman (5th). So leaving Mary of Magdala out we have at least three women:

Mary Jesus

Mary's sister=? Mary the wife of Clopas (Alpheus) the wife of Zeebedee James, Joses (Mathew 10:4, 27:56, Jon 19:25) James, John

Consequently, James and Joses (Joseph) in Mathew 13:55 are not blood brothers of Jesus, but only relatives. If Mary's sister and Mary the wife of Clopas are different and/or Alpheus is not Clopas, there may be yet another women. See article below

http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/alphaeus.htm Alphaeus, Cleopas, & Clopas (Cleophas)

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 1 George Arthus Buttrick, Editor (Nashiville, Abingdon Press, 1962) Alphaeus (Greek, Alphaios) A purely Greek name, one of many such names used commonly by first-century Jews in Palestine. Westcott and Hort, accepting the supposition that it is a transliteratioin of the Aramaic, give this name a rough breathing. This is, owever only an assumption, and not a necessary one. The name does not occur in the OT,, but it does occur five times in the NT. These divide readily into references to two separate individuals, both of whom are mentioned only indirectly. 1. The father of Levi (Mark 2:14). If, by comparison of Matt. 9:9, Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27, it is thought that Levi and Matthew are the same individual, then this Alphaeus cannot be identified with the father of James, because Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18 show an Alphaeus who is father of James but not of Matthew. Even if Levi be identified with Matthew, it tells us nothing more about Alphaeus father of Levi. The NT offers no more data on this Alphaeus. In Mark 2:14 [ancient manuscripts] read Iakobon ("James") for "Levi," but this is probably no more than scribal effort to harmonize this passage with Mark 3:18 and parallels. The preponderant weight of MS evidence supports the reading Leuein ("Levi").

2. The father of James (Matt. 19:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The first three of these passages are Synoptic parallels and indicate nothing more than that Alphaeus is the father of the James who in the Mark and Matthew passages is clearly distinguished from James son of Zebedee. The same distinction is made in Acts 1:13. Past efforts to identify this Alphaeus with Clopas (John 19:25) and with Cleopas (Luke 24:18) are quite arbitrary and rest upon no firm evidence. Kleopas (Luke 24:18) is a contraction of Kleopatros, a purely Greek name, and is not to be identified with Klopas, (John 19:25), which is of Aramaic origin. Klopas cannot be reduced to the same Hebrew original as Alphaeus; hensc they cannot be identified. Cleopas [Kleopas, probably a shortened form of Kleopatros]. One of the two disciples who were confronted by the risen Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:18). The other is not named. Tradition gives the name Simon to the companion and includes both amonth the Seventy of Luk 10:1-24. Cleopas is sometimes identified with Clopas. The connection is not impossible, but in the absence of clear supporting evidence it must remain uncertain. Clopas [Klopas] (John 19:25); KJV Cleophas. The husband (or son or father) of one of the women who stood at the foot of the cross. No certain reference to hm appears elsewhere in the NT, though he is sometimes identified with Cleopas and/or Alphaeus. there is no linguistic relationship between "Cleopas," a genuine Greek name, and "Clopas," which seems to be of Semitic origin. Grammarians recognize that the names may commonly have been interchanged, but this is hardly sufficient grounds for assuming personal identity. There is no indication that the Clopas named in John 19:25 was also known as Cleopas or that the names have been interchanged in the transmission of the text. The connection with Alphaeus can be established only if Mary the wife of Clopas is the same person as Mary the mother of James and Joses (Mark 15:40 = Matt. 27:56; cf. Luke 23:49; 24:10), and if the James mentioned here is the same as James son of Alphaeus (Mark 3:18 = Math. 10:3 = Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). Mary the wife of Clopas may thus be recognized as the wife of Alphaeus, and it is possible to suppose that Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person. Since other alternatives are present in each of the preliminary suppositions, as well as in the final identification, the question must remain undecided. "Clopas" can hardly be explain as a variant transliteration of the Aramaic or Hebrew form from which "Alphaeus" is derived. Efforts to connect Clopas, and therefore Alphaeus and his sons, with the family of Jesus, are based on the inference that only three women are named in John 19:25 (cf. Mark 15:40 = Matt. 27:56). Mary the wife of Clopas must then be identified as the sister of Jesus' mother. The text permits such an identification, but it certainly does not require it. In this connection it is interesting to note that Hegessipus mentions a brother of Joseph whose name was Clopas (Euseb. Hist. III.11; 32:1-4, 6; IV.11.4). Dictionary of the Bible, Second Edition Edited by James Hastings, revised by Frederick C. Grant & H.H. Rowley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963) Alphaeus. 1. The father of Levi according to Mk 2:14 (cf Lk 5:27). We know nothing more of him than his name. Matthew's identification of Levi with the apostle Matthew (Mt 9:9, 10:3) and the reading of some manuscripts in Mk 2:14 (which identify Levi with James the son of Alphaeus apearto be attempts to bring Levi within the circle of the twelve apostles.

2. The father of James the apostle (Mat 10:3, Mk 3:18, Lk 6:15, Act 1:13). The attempts to relate Alphaeus the father of James with Alphaeus the father of Levi rest on the insufficient manuscript evidence referred to above and late tradition which asserts that both Matthew and James had been tax collectors (Chrysostom). More frequent has been the identification of this James with James the younger whose mother was Mary and whose brother was Joses (Mk 15:40, Mt 27:56). This Mary is then identified with Mary the wife of Clopas mentioned in Jn 19:25. If this is so, Clopas and Alphaeus are one and the same person and it is pointed out that either name may be derived from the Aramaic name Chalphai (cf 1 Mac 11:70). Finally, some follow out the suggestion of Hegesippus that Clopas was a brother of Joseph (which was perhaps inferred from what appears to be a misunderstnding of Jn 19:25) and thus introduce further complications into the picture. But none of this can be proved. For the names Mary and James are much too common to make identification certain and there is some evidence that Alphaeus and Clopas are not derived from the Aramaic name. These identifications are made all the less likely since they are arrived at through an arbitrary combination of references from the Synoptic Gospels and John. Cleopas. One of the disciples at Emmaus, Lk 24:18; the name is probably the same as Clopas (jn 19:25), and Alphaeus (Mk 3:18 and parallels) may be used as a Greek equivalent; but any identification of the characters is merely conjectural. Clopas (AV Cleophas) is named only in Jn 19:25. See Alphaeus... Harpers Bible Dictionary edited by Paul J. Achtemier (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985) You are strongly recommended to add to your library the excellent revised edition of Harper's Bible Dictionary titled, The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary, Revised Edition [book review], edited by Paul J. Achtemeier, with the Society of Biblical Literature (NY: Harper Collins, 1996). It is currently the best one-volume Bible dictionary in English, and it is available at Border's Books, Christian Science Reading Rooms, http://www.borders.com, or http://www.christianbook.com. Alphaeus. 1 Father of James, one of Jesus twelve disciples who is not to be identified with James the son of Zebedee (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). 2 Father of Levi (Matthew?) the tax collector (Mark 2:14; see Matt. 9:9; Luke 5:27). Cleopas, a disciple who with an unnamed companion encountered the resurrected Jesus as they traveled to Emmaus (Luke 24:18-35). Clopas; kjv: Cleophas), husband of one of the Marys present at Jesus crucifixion (John 19:25). Oxford Dictionary of the Bible by W.R.F. Browning (NY: Oxford University Press, 1996) Alphaeus. In Mat 10:3 mentioned as the father of James, after 'James the son of Zebedee.' In Mark 2:14 he is cited as the father of Levi (usually identified as Matthew), and it is suggested that the mother of this James was Mary (Mark 15:40), whose husband was Clopas (John 19:25), which would mean that

Clopas and Alphaeus are the same person, but this string of hazardous identifications beloved by the Fathers (e.g., Chrysostom) is dismissed by modern scholarship. Cleopas. One of two disciples who met the risen Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:18). Possibly to be identified with Clopas of John 19:25, since the fourth gospel has various contacts with the Lucan tradition.

LA FAMILIA
Monseor Romero - Ciclo B 25 de febrero de 1979 No lo olviden los casados: "La pareja santificada por el sacramento del matrimonio es un evangelio de presencia pascual del Seor. La familia cristiana cultiva el espritu de amor y de servicio. Cuatro relaciones fundamentales de la persona encuentran su pleno desarrollo en la vida de familia -Cules son esas cuatro relaciones?-: paternidad -o sea el amor del padre y la madre a los hijos-, la filiacin -el amor de los hijos a los padres-, hermandad -el amor que une como hermanos a los hijos de una misma pareja-, nupcialidad". El amor del hombre que saliendo de su infancia y llegando a la juventud, siente que hay que cumplir un deber: dejar a su padre y a su madre, y como dijo aquel poeta espaol: "Buscar en las hijas de mi tierra, una mujer como la madre ma!" "Qu hermoso sera que todo novio, al ir a buscar su futuro hogar, pensara en su mam para buscar una novia que fuera la continuacin de ese amor y, viceversa, la novia buscara en su futuro hogar un hombre que sea el pilar responsable, santo, justo, como su propio pap. ! Padres, madres, resistirn este reto de la juventud?! "Estas mismas cuatro relaciones -contina Puebla- componen la vida de la Iglesia -fjense cmo en la familia se reflejan todas las relaciones de la Iglesia. Qu es la Iglesia?-: experiencia de Dios como Padre, relacin filial y paternal; experiencia de Cristo como hermano, experiencia de ser hijos, en, con y por el Hijo, experiencia de Cristo como esposo de la Iglesia. La vida en familia reproduce y participa en pequeo de estas cuatro experiencias fundamentales; cuatro rostros del amor hermano". Esto es algo de lo que Puebla ha dicho y como ven, pues, hay mucha riqueza para reflexionar. Baste por ahora el haber elevado nuestras relaciones de amor que nos deben unir a esa amplitud del Cristo que es el modelo de los cuatro rostros del amor. El novio est en la Iglesia.

WHERE THE BIBLE COMES FROM


from http://www.trueknights.org/bio6.html Does it matter which church we go to? During my search for advent customs I had come across many things that I had catalogued in the back of my mind. But I was still not convinced that we had to be Catholic or any other denomination. However, what really made me start to think was when I started looking at the history of the Presbyterian Church itself. I discovered that there are and have been several Presbyterian branches, and they all these branches had varying differences of practice and beliefs about the right interpretation of Scripture. As I researched even more, I traced a trail that led me all the way back through John Knox and Calvin and finally back to Martin Luther. I was amazed at how so many denominations had been formed in the past 500 years since the 1500s, and with the largest amount of new denominations being created in just the last 100 years. Why? Why in all the history of Christianity was there only one Church for 1500 years and then in the last 500 years there have been over 35,000 denominations that were now existing or had existed at one time? This just didnt seem right to me. Something about this really bothered me. So, I started to investigate what these different denominations believed to try to understand this. I soon discovered the following; * The Lutheran Church believes in baptismal regeneration, the Baptist church does not. * The Assembly of God denomination uses instrumental music during worship, the Church of Christ denomination believes instrumental music to be unbiblical. * Presbyterians believe in unconditional atonement and irresistible grace, Methodists reject the two beliefs. * The Lutheran church believes that worship should be liturgical, the Assembly of God church does not. * The Church of Christ denomination believes that baptism should be administered by complete immersion only, Presbyterians believe pouring is acceptable. * Methodists believe in the Trinity, Oneness Pentecostals do not. * Lutherans affirm the fact that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, Baptists reject this belief and say that Mary had other children. * The Church of Christ denomination believes that baptism is necessary for salvation, the Baptist Church does not. * The Methodist church accepts female ministers, while the Baptist church rejects female ministers as unbiblical. * Episcopalians baptize infants, Pentecostals believe infant baptism to be invalid. * The Baptist Church teaches that once a person is saved, he is always saved and can not fall from grace. The Church of Christ rejects this teaching as unscriptural. Wow...it was so confusing. Of course the above findings are just a generalization, its even more

complicated and convoluted than this, but I think you can see what Im getting at. What was the Truth? Could I just choose what and how I wanted to believe? Was it really My choice? Certainly God wasnt the author of this mess. If God really did exists, and at this point I firmly believed he did, then how could the Truth be a relevant truth? If the Bible was the only thing that was necessary to know the Truth, as Protestants teach, then why were their so many interpretations of the scriptures? I would read from some Protestant Christian sources that the Holy Spirit guides us all in the correct interpretation of the Word, but if that was indeed true, then why all the confusion? If the Holy Spirit guided each and ever person in the correct interpretation of the Word, then why didnt every Christian believe the same things? Why all the need for different denominations? It just did not make much sense to me. There was only one thing for me to do. I had to find the Truth...if it existed! I wasn't going to settle for second best...I wanted the WHOLE ENTIRE TRUTH. Nothing less. Why settle...my salvation was at stake. Besides...God was now in control and He had something He wanted me to see! What is Truth? I started my search for the Truth by approaching it as a detective. And detectives, lawyers and historians all have something in common...they dig until they find the Truth. I had many questions as to why all these churchs had many different interpretations of Scripture. Then I though about how lawyers would handle a similar problem. If two lawyers disagree about the interpretation of a law, what do they do? They go to earliest use of that law to see how it was originally interpreted. Being a history buff, I had to research the history. I had to go back to where it all began. I had to go past the 1500s, past the beginning of the first Protestant church, back to the beginnings of Christianity and the Bible. Being a historian, I knew I could not trust so-called history books - theres always a slant! i had to rely on primary sources. The original documents as they were written. I went back to the original Christians, the writings of the Early Church Fathers. If the truth was to be found it had to be there otherwise I would be forced to believe again that Truth doesnt exists that we could essentially believe what ever we wanted to and I knew deep in my heart, that wasnt the case. As I begin to really read the Bible and studied the writings of the Early Church Fathers, I saw something that looked very different than what I was seeing in modern Protestant churches. I began to see the Truth emerge. Only a few churches looked like the first churches of the first centuries of Christianity. I took a close look at the Church of the Book of Acts and the Church that Irenaeus describes in the second century as well as the Church of Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Barnabas, all Christians living in the first, second and third centuries. I started to really examine what they truly believed and taught. One Interesting thing I discovered was that the Bible didnt exist during this period. At least the New Testament didn't. They did have the Old Testament that Jesus and the diciples had used...the Septuegint,

but they did not have a formalized set of books that consisted as the New Testament yet. They had most of the writings, but not all together and they only had them on scrolls. Books hadn't been invented yet. So It was almost impossible for any one person to own a complete set of these writings, much less multiple copies for every Christian of the day to own and read for themselves. Also, not everyone agree on which writings were authoritative and divinely inspired. As can be seen in the Book of Acts, Christianity of the first centuries was an oral religion. The Apostles would go from town to town and village to village preaching the Word of God as was the command of Jesus himself... Go and preach the Word. They certainly did not hand out Bibles and tell everyone to interpret for themselves what the Truth was. Yet, thats exactly what many Christians are doing today. And many will argue by saying that its the way it always has been. But I learned that this is not the case. This is exactly the reason for all the confusion. Not that Im putting anyone down for thinking this or believing this way. Its just the way they were taught. Its just what they were told. Most people do not either have the time or the inclination to research the truth/history for themselves. Anyway, getting back to the origin of the Bible. I learned that many, many writings existed during the first few hundred years of Christianity. For instance...over seventy gospels and other so-called epistles existed by the late three hundreds. People were just writing their own versions of the Truth. Most were fiction writers, for instance the Gospel According Pontius Pilate, but only a few of the writings were Holy inspired. So during the mid to late 300s the leaders of the Church saw a need to define an authoritative canon of what the divinely inspired Scriptures were. The leaders of the Church set out to declare which writings were the true divinely inspired writings of God.In the late 300s, the Church led by the Bishop of Rome, Pope St. Damasus I established a Council to determine which writings were the True and Inspired Word of God. The great theologian St. Augustine and others decided what they should be, based on very specific critera and led by the Holy Spirit. They presented their findings to the pope. And again with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I declared in a decree, which books of the Bible were canonical. A decree was issued at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. and the Canon of the Holy Scriptures that they declared was the True Divinely Inspired Word comprised of the total books that exist to this day in the Catholic version of the Bible, not the Protestant version. Martin Luther would later decide that seven books from the Bible were unimportant and it should be noted that he carried this out by his authority alone. He even says this in one of his own writings. But even Martin Luther would acknowledge that without the Catholic Church, we wouldnt even have a Bible. He said in one his letters the following. We are compelled to concede to the Papists (The Catholic Church) that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all. It would be the puritans in England during the 1600s that would get the 7 books permanently removed from the Proetstant Bible. So one of my questions had been answered. If the Protestant sources I would read were correct in saying that the Bible alone is all we need then were in the Bible did it say this? And if the contents of Bible were not even decided upon until the 400s and not everyone could own a Bible like they do now

because of prohibitive cost and the writings existing only on scrolls, then how could the concept of Sola Scriptura even work in the first few centuries? In addition I researched the Middle Ages Process of making bibles. Bibles were quite prohibitively expensive. Gutenberg wouldnt even invent the printing press for another thousand years and it was not until the 1800s that it became practical and inexpensive for almost everyone to own a Bible. For me this threw Sola Scriptura of the Protestant Reformation right out the window. In fact in the 1500 years of Christianity before the Protestant Reformation there was absolutely no evidence for a belief in the Bible Alone concept that exists in Protestant churches today. Most people couldnt even read...much less interpret the Bible for themselves. And if the Bible was truly all that was needed to be a Christian then what about all those people for the 1400 years before the printing press was invented? If you couldnt own a Bible nor read, was Jesus just leaving them in the dark as lost souls? It would appear that Jesus had established an elitist religion if you had to believe in the Bible Alone to be a Christian. You must be able to read and have money to own a Bible, before you could be a Christian. For Christians today in the modern western world, thats not much of a problem, most everyone can afford a Bible and literacy is not the huge problem it was during the first 1800 years of Christianity. But from the time of Christ until the 1800s, that would leave out almost everyone out except for the very rich and learned. I simply couldnt believe that this was what Jesus had intended. The Bible itself says that personal interpretation would lead to error as can be seen in the writings of St. Peter where he wrote in 2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. I discovered that most Christians were not even aware of the History of Christiainty or even heard of the Early Church Fathers or what has been believed consistantly from the 1st century of the Christian faith for the past 2000 years, that the Holy Scriptures and Sacred Tradition to interpret the Scriptures form the Word of God. No writings of the Early Church Fathers suggested they taught Scripture Alone. Sacred Tradition was necessary to understanding the scriptures and all the writings of the earliest Church Fathers showed this. Again the Holy Scriptures and Sacred Tradition form the complete Word of God. Even the Bible itself will confirm this. For example in 1 Cor. 11:2 we hear Paul saying: I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the Traditions even as I have delivered them to you. And in 2 Thess. 3:6 he even orders them to keep the Traditions by saying: Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the Tradition that you received from us. What traditions was he talking about? It was beginning to become really clear to me now. I could see what the Early Church believed about Sacred Tradition. And not once does Paul say, that the Scriptures are all you need. I was convinced that Luthers doctrine of Sola Scriptura was wrong, and was the author of a whole slew of errors. Luthers motive was clear to me. He did not embrace the doctrine of Sola Scriptura because it was Biblical. On the contrary, he had embraced it because he could not accept the authority of the Church. Based on his skewed perception of a corupt and sinful institution. Since he rejected the authority of the Church, then in

his mind he had no choice but to justify his position by stating that the Bible was the sole infallible source of Truth. Even though the Bible itself says something entirely different, as can be clearly seen in 1 Tim 3:15 where it says: The Church of the living God, is the pillar and foundation of truth. As a result of Martin Luthers mistake and subsequent men who followed in his footsteps, man has been allowed to interpret Gods Holy Scripture any way they like, and the product of this has been disastrous. Here is just an example of what I mean. Most denominations today accept or at least ignore things that God has always taught against, like divorce, birth control and abortion. And now we live in the most divorce prone society that has ever existed. Birth control is seen as normal and even desirable (despite the fact it is directly in conflict with Gods first commandment to humans to be fruitful and multiply) and abortion is a direct result of the acceptance of birth control. Does this sound like the work of Gods Holy Spirit guiding the faithful? It didnt to me. In addition, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura assumes that everything we need is right there in the scriptures. Yet, the Bible itself says something different: Look at John 16:12 I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth. Just think about it. Jesus spent three years teaching the apostles during his ministry. It would have been impossible to contain everything he taught within the pages of several small books. Eventually I would conclude that only two modern churches fit the model of the first church: The Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church. Only these two churches looked anything like the church of the Early Christians. So I began compared the Orthodox and Catholics side by side. As I started to compare the Orthodox church with the Catholic I made several discoveries. Each one was claiming to be the first church. Each one had Sacred Tradition, Apostolic Succession and many other similarities. And I saw that the vast majority of their doctrine was almost identical. For instance a belief in purgatory, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the communion of Saints. and so on. Truthfully, I think that due to my still slight prejudices toward the Catholic Church I began to lean toward the Orthodox Churches at first. But reluctantly, the more I researched the more It became clear. I would find that the Orthodox Church had changed some of its teachings from time to time. So in the end I had no choice but to conclude that the One True Church was the Catholic Church. What it came down to was the question of authority. This was the very thing that had caused the two Churches to split after the first thousand years of Christendom. And it was my investigation of this conflict that would lead me to the Fullness of Truth. A Question of Authority To examine this question of authority I went back to the Bible. I saw that Jesus gave the authority to lead the faithful to one man, Simon bar Jona, a.k.a. Peter...or as Jesus called him, Kephas....The Rock! Probably the most disputed line of scripture is Matthew 16:17-18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [not churches], and the powers

of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Now some Non-Catholics will say Jesus Christ is not calling the apostle Peter rock at all. Some will argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else like his "faith" or even Himself as the rock. But a closer look at this argument reveals much. For example, Protestants will argue that the Greek term used for Peter's name (Petros) is not the same word and the term for rock (petra). But what they fail to acknowledge is that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that the original book of Matthew was written in Aramaic...as can be testified by the writings of the Early Church Fathers. In fact the Bible itself in John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life Jesus actually referred to Peter as Kephas. Kephas is the Aramaic word for rock and it translates into Greek as petros. So what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was (trasliterated): You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church. But so that I could gain a clear understanding and not to be swayed by any modern aurguments...Again I went to the Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the original apostles in time, culture, and theological background, to get a clearer understanding of what they believed was true about this. The evidence was conclusive that they understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show: Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter. (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]) The Lord says to Peter: I say to you, he says, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . [Matt. 16:18-19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (Cyprian of Carthage: The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]) There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering. (Cyprian of Carthage: Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]). There [John 6:68-69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock

clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another. (Cyprian of Carthage: Letters 66[69]:8 [A.D. 253]) [Christ] made answer: You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the Rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (Ambrose of Milan: The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]) It is to Peter that he says: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal. (Ambrose of Milan: Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]) I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails. (Jerome: Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]) There are many more references that prove this claim, but these clearly show that the Early Church Fathers clearly understood that Peter was the absolute first leader of the Church. That the Church was built on the rock that was Peter and as you can clearly see, they even knew this early in the history of Christianity. I could not find one writing from any of the Church Fathers that said anything different. Not one. Nothing even resembling the non-Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 existed until Martin Luther and his doctrine of Sola Scriptura, came about. Therefore based upon the conclusive evidence the Protestant interpretation had to be false. If the Early Church Fathers were correct, then Peter was indeed the first Bishop of Rome. And if Peter was the first and the chief of all the Apostles then I had to conclude that the Orthodox Church was wrong in rejecting the authority that Jesus himself had established. I had no choice but to conclude that the Catholic Church was the One Holy, Apostolic and Universal (Catholic) Church that was established by Jesus, with Peter and his ecclesiastical descendants as its leader on earth in union with all the other bishops of the Church. If I had to accept this teaching based on scripture and the Early Church Fathers understanding of it, then I therefore had to accept their teaching on the Authority of the Bishop of Rome. Which would lead to my acceptance of the divine protection of the teachings of the Catholic Church, with the Holy Spirit guiding the Pope and the Magestarium of the Church infallibly throughout all time and into the present in matters of faith and morals. Just to clarify, Saying that they are infallible does not mean that everything thing they say and do is sinless or without error, thats impeccability, not infallibility. Infallibility is only applied when the Popes and the bishops in union with the Pope are speaking in matters that concern faith and morals, as per Jesus promise to always guide them and prevent them from making any errors to the teachings as Christ revealed to the world.

And in my research I would further discover that not one teaching of the Church had ever changed from the earliest times to the present Early Church Fathers taught and wrote about are still taught and believed to this day. Doctrine on Christ, Mary, salvation, the Eucharist, etc. All of it belived today...just as it was 2000 years ago. 21 official councils in the Catholic Church and NOTHING has ever been changed to directly contradict any teaching. Not one teaching in all of 2000 years has ever changed! Only our understanding has changed. This was absolutely amazing to me. How could any human-led organization remain true to its doctrine and dogma without changing something in 2000 years? How could this be possible? The only answer was found in Holy Scripture. Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19-20) and he promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to guide you (the Church) into all the truth (John 16:13). If the Church were to have changed any teachings then Jesus would have been a liar. His promise guarantees the Church would never fall away and even if individual Catholics might do so, even if individual Popes themselves might be horrible sinners, thats the even more miraculous and supernatural aspect of it all. Despite the times when the human leaders of the Church were corrupt, sinners just like you and me...like every human that has ever lived except for Jesus (who was both God and Human) and His mother, Mary, the teachings of the Church always remained intact and whole. The Truth was NEVER EVER changed. It couldnt change, because Jesus made a promise that He wouldnt let it change. As I would continue to research I would discover how other denominations have changed their teachings and interpretations of the Holy Scriptures as they saw necessary. This is most evidently demonstrated by the Episcopal Churchs acceptance of birth control in the 1930s, which I must add, that all Christians before the 1930s held and believed that birth control was a grave and moral sin. Yet after the Episcopal Church accepted it, one by one, all other denominations followed suit. Every church accepted it that is...except the Catholic Church. So there you have it...The Complete Fullness of Truth! Once I had done the research and discovered the truth, I had no doubt in my mind that Jesus created one Church, and this in turn would lead me to discover the tools that Christ gave us through the Catholic Church to help us live in truth and happiness.

THY KINGDOM COME


Lk 11:20 but it is by the finger of God that I drive out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you.

HE DESCENDED UNTO HELL

BAPTISM
John 3:5 5 Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Acts 2:37-42: Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, "What are we to do, my brothers?" 38 Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, 7 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." 40 He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day. 42 They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.

The latter passage shows that (1) they believed and (2) they needed to baptize to receive pardon and the Holy Spirit

From Cathecism:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1213

ARTICLE 1 THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM 1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5 I. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED? 1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."6 1215 This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7 1216 "This bath is called enlightenment, because those who receive this [catechetical] instruction are enlightened in their understanding . . . ."8 Having received in Baptism the Word, "the true light that enlightens every man," the person baptized has been "enlightened," he becomes a "son of light," indeed, he becomes "light" himself:9

Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift. . . .We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God's Lordship.10 II. BAPTISM IN THE ECONOMY OF SALVATION Prefigurations of Baptism in the Old Covenant 1217 In the liturgy of the Easter Vigil, during the blessing of the baptismal water, the Church solemnly commemorates the great events in salvation history that already prefigured the mystery of Baptism: Father, you give us grace through sacramental signs, which tell us of the wonders of your unseen power. In Baptism we use your gift of water, which you have made a rich symbol of the grace you give us in this sacrament.11 1218 Since the beginning of the world, water, so humble and wonderful a creature, has been the source of life and fruitfulness. Sacred Scripture sees it as "overshadowed" by the Spirit of God:12 At the very dawn of creation your Spirit breathed on the waters, making them the wellspring of all holiness.13 1219 The Church has seen in Noah's ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it "a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water":14 The waters of the great flood you made a sign of the waters of Baptism, that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness.15 1220 If water springing up from the earth symbolizes life, the water of the sea is a symbol of death and so can represent the mystery of the cross. By this symbolism Baptism signifies communion with Christ's death. 1221 But above all, the crossing of the Red Sea, literally the liberation of Israel from the slavery of Egypt, announces the liberation wrought by Baptism: You freed the children of Abraham from the slavery of Pharaoh, bringing them dry-shod through the waters of the Red Sea, to be an image of the people set free in Baptism.16 1222 Finally, Baptism is prefigured in the crossing of the Jordan River by which the People of God received the gift of the land promised to Abraham's descendants, an image of eternal life. The promise of this blessed inheritance is fulfilled in the New Covenant.

Christ's Baptism 1223 All the Old Covenant prefigurations find their fulfillment in Christ Jesus. He begins his public life after having himself baptized by St. John the Baptist in the Jordan.17 After his resurrection Christ gives this mission to his apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."18 1224 Our Lord voluntarily submitted himself to the baptism of St. John, intended for sinners, in order to "fulfill all righteousness."19 Jesus' gesture is a manifestation of his self-emptying.20 The Spirit who had hovered over the waters of the first creation descended then on the Christ as a prelude of the new creation, and the Father revealed Jesus as his "beloved Son."21 1225 In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized.22 The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life.23 From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit"24 in order to enter the Kingdom of God. See where you are baptized, see where Baptism comes from, if not from the cross of Christ, from his death. There is the whole mystery: he died for you. In him you are redeemed, in him you are saved.25 Baptism in the Church 1226 From the very day of Pentecost the Church has celebrated and administered holy Baptism. Indeed St. Peter declares to the crowd astounded by his preaching: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."26 The apostles and their collaborators offer Baptism to anyone who believed in Jesus: Jews, the God-fearing, pagans.27 Always, Baptism is seen as connected with faith: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household," St. Paul declared to his jailer in Philippi. And the narrative continues, the jailer "was baptized at once, with all his family."28 1227 According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ's death, is buried with him, and rises with him: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 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.29 The baptized have "put on Christ."30 Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.31 1228 Hence Baptism is a bath of water in which the "imperishable seed" of the Word of God produces its life-giving effect.32 St. Augustine says of Baptism: "The word is brought to the material element, and it becomes a sacrament."33 III. HOW IS THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM CELEBRATED? Christian Initiation

1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion. 1230 This initiation has varied greatly through the centuries according to circumstances. In the first centuries of the Church, Christian initiation saw considerable development. A long period of catechumenate included a series of preparatory rites, which were liturgical landmarks along the path of catechumenal preparation and culminated in the celebration of the sacraments of Christian initiation. 1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here. 1232 The second Vatican Council restored for the Latin Church "the catechumenate for adults, comprising several distinct steps."34 The rites for these stages are to be found in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA).35 The Council also gives permission that: "In mission countries, in addition to what is furnished by the Christian tradition, those elements of initiation rites may be admitted which are already in use among some peoples insofar as they can be adapted to the Christian ritual."36 1233 Today in all the rites, Latin and Eastern, the Christian initiation of adults begins with their entry into the catechumenate and reaches its culmination in a single celebration of the three sacraments of initiation: Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist.37 In the Eastern rites the Christian initiation of infants also begins with Baptism followed immediately by Confirmation and the Eucharist, while in the Roman rite it is followed by years of catechesis before being completed later by Confirmation and the Eucharist, the summit of their Christian initiation.38 The mystagogy of the celebration 1234 The meaning and grace of the sacrament of Baptism are clearly seen in the rites of its celebration. By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, the faithful are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about in each newly baptized person. 1235 The sign of the cross, on the threshold of the celebration, marks with the imprint of Christ the one who is going to belong to him and signifies the grace of the redemption Christ won for us by his cross. 1236 The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, which is inseparable from Baptism. Indeed Baptism is "the sacrament of faith" in a particular way, since it is the sacramental entry into the life of faith. 1237 Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate. The celebrant then anoints him with the oil of catechumens, or lays his hands on him, and he explicitly renounces Satan. Thus prepared, he is able to confess the faith of the Church, to which he will be "entrusted" by Baptism.39 1238 The baptismal water is consecrated by a prayer of epiclesis (either at this moment or at the Easter Vigil). The Church asks God that through his Son the power of the Holy Spirit may be sent upon the

water, so that those who will be baptized in it may be "born of water and the Spirit."40 1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head. 1240 In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister's words: "N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." In the Eastern liturgies the catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: "The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy Trinity, the priest immerses the candidate in the water and raises him up again. 1241 The anointing with sacred chrism, perfumed oil consecrated by the bishop, signifies the gift of the Holy Spirit to the newly baptized, who has become a Christian, that is, one "anointed" by the Holy Spirit, incorporated into Christ who is anointed priest, prophet, and king.41 1242 In the liturgy of the Eastern Churches, the post-baptismal anointing is the sacrament of Chrismation (Confirmation). In the Roman liturgy the post- baptismal anointing announces a second anointing with sacred chrism to be conferred later by the bishop Confirmation, which will as it were "confirm" and complete the baptismal anointing. 1243 The white garment symbolizes that the person baptized has "put on Christ,"42 has risen with Christ. The candle, lit from the Easter candle, signifies that Christ has enlightened the neophyte. In him the baptized are "the light of the world."43 The newly baptized is now, in the only Son, a child of God entitled to say the prayer of the children of God: "Our Father." 1244 First Holy Communion. Having become a child of God clothed with the wedding garment, the neophyte is admitted "to the marriage supper of the Lamb"44 and receives the food of the new life, the body and blood of Christ. The Eastern Churches maintain a lively awareness of the unity of Christian initiation by giving Holy Communion to all the newly baptized and confirmed, even little children, recalling the Lord's words: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them."45 The Latin Church, which reserves admission to Holy Communion to those who have attained the age of reason, expresses the orientation of Baptism to the Eucharist by having the newly baptized child brought to the altar for the praying of the Our Father. 1245 The solemn blessing concludes the celebration of Baptism. At the Baptism of newborns the blessing of the mother occupies a special place. IV. WHO CAN RECEIVE BAPTISM? 1246 "Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized."46 The Baptism of adults 1247 Since the beginning of the Church, adult Baptism is the common practice where the proclamation of the Gospel is still new. The catechumenate (preparation for Baptism) therefore occupies an important

place. This initiation into Christian faith and life should dispose the catechumen to receive the gift of God in Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist. 1248 The catechumenate, or formation of catechumens, aims at bringing their conversion and faith to maturity, in response to the divine initiative and in union with an ecclesial community. The catechumenate is to be "a formation in the whole Christian life . . . during which the disciples will be joined to Christ their teacher. The catechumens should be properly initiated into the mystery of salvation and the practice of the evangelical virtues, and they should be introduced into the life of faith, liturgy, and charity of the People of God by successive sacred rites."47 1249 Catechumens "are already joined to the Church, they are already of the household of Christ, and are quite frequently already living a life of faith, hope, and charity."48 "With love and solicitude mother Church already embraces them as her own."49 The Baptism of infants 1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51 1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52 1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53 Faith and Baptism 1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith.54 But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!" 1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth. 1255 For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents' help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized - child or adult on the road of Christian life.55 Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium).56 The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism. V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE? 1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the

deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59 VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. 1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. VII. THE GRACE OF BAPTISM 1262 The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.65 For the forgiveness of sins . . . 1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68 "A new creature" 1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"69 member of Christ and co-heir with him,70 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.71 1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification: - enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues; - giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit; - allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues. Thus the whole organism of the Christian's supernatural life has its roots in Baptism. Incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ 1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."73 1268 The baptized have become "living stones" to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood."74 By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light."75 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers. 1269 Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us.76 From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to "obey and submit" to the Church's leaders,77 holding them in respect and affection.78 Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church.79 1270 "Reborn as sons of God, [the baptized] must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church" and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the People of God.80 The sacramental bond of the unity of Christians 1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism

therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82 An indelible spiritual mark . . . 1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.83 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated. 1273 Incorporated into the Church by Baptism, the faithful have received the sacramental character that consecrates them for Christian religious worship.84 The baptismal seal enables and commits Christians to serve God by a vital participation in the holy liturgy of the Church and to exercise their baptismal priesthood by the witness of holy lives and practical charity.85 1274 The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord ("Dominicus character") "for the day of redemption."86 "Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life."87 The faithful Christian who has "kept the seal" until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life "marked with the sign of faith,"88 with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection. IN BRIEF 1275 Christian initiation is accomplished by three sacraments together: Baptism which is the beginning of new life; Confirmation which is its strengthening; and the Eucharist which nourishes the disciple with Christ's Body and Blood for his transformation in Christ. 1276 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Mt 28:19-20). 1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism. 1278 The essential rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 1279 The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ. 1280 Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. Because of the character Baptism cannot be repeated (cf. DS 1609 and DS 1624). 1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16). 1282 Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of

God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom. 1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation. 1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate's head while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." 4 Cf. Council Of Florence: DS 1314: vitae spiritualis ianua. 5 Roman Catechism II,2,5; Cf. Council Of Florence: DS 1314; CIC, cann. 204 1; 849; CCEO, can. 675 1. 6 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; Cf. Rom 6:34; Col 2:12. 7 Titus 3:5; Jn 3:5. 8 St. Justin, Apol. 1,61,12:PG 6,421. 9 Jn 1:9; 1 Thess 5:5; Heb 10:32; Eph 5:8. 10 St. Gregory Of Nazianzus, Oratio 40,3-4:PG 36,361C. 11 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 42: Blessing of Water. 12 Cf. Gen 1:2. 13 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 42: Blessing of Water. 14 1 Pet 3:20. 15 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 42: Blessing of Water. 16 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 42: Blessing of Water: "Abrahae filios per mare Rubrum sicco vestigio transire fecisti, ut plebs, a Pharaonis servitute liberata, populum baptizatorum prfiguraret." 17 Cf. Mt 3:13. 18 Mt 28:19-20; cf. Mk 16:15-16. 19 Mt 3:15. 20 Cf. Phil 2:7. 21 Mt 3:16-17. 22 Mk 10:38; cf. Lk 12:50. 23 Cf. Jn 19:34; 1 Jn 5:6-8. 24 Cf. Jn 3:5. 25 St. Ambrose, De sacr. 2,2,6:PL 16,444; cf. Jn 3:5. 26 Acts 2:38. 27 Cf. Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 10:48; 16:15. 28 Acts 16:31-33. 29 Rom 6:3-4; cf. Col 2:12. 30 Gal 3:27. 31 CE 1 Cor 6:11; 12:13. 32 1 Pet 1:23; cf. Eph 5:26. 33 St. Augustine, In Jo. ev. 80,3:PL 35,1840. 34 SC 64. 35 Cf. RCIA (1972). 36 SC 65; cf. SC 37-40. 37 Cf. AG 14; CIC, cann. 851; 865; 866. 38 Cf. CIC, cann. 851, 2o; 868. 39 Cf. Rom 6:17. 40 Jn 3:5. 41 Cf. RBC 62.

42 Gal 3:27. 43 Mt 5:14; cf. Phil 2:15. 44 Rev 19:9. 45 Mk 10:14. 46 CIC, can. 864; cf. CCEO, can. 679. 47 AG 14; cf. RCIA 19; 98. 48 AG 14 5. 49 LG 14 3; cf. CIC, cann. 206; 788 3. 50 Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1514; cf. Col 1:12-14. 51 Cf. CIC, can. 867; CCEO, cann. 681; 686,1. 52 Cf. LG 11; 41; GS 48; CIC, can. 868. 53 Cf. Acts 16:15,33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16; CDF, instruction, Pastoralis actio: AAS 72 (1980) 1137-1156. 54 Cf. Mk 16:16. 55 Cf. CIC, cann. 872-874. 56 Cf. SC 67. 57 Cf. CIC, can. 861 1; CCEO, can. 677 1. 58 CIC, can. 861.2. 59 Cf. 1 Tim 2:4. 60 Cf. Jn 3:5. 61 Cf. Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) DS 1618; LG 14; AG 5. 62 Cf. Mk 16:16. 63 GS 22 5; cf. LG 16; AG 7. 64 Mk 10 14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4. 65 Cf. Acts 2:38; Jn 3:5. 66 Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1316. 67 Council of Trent (1546): DS 1515. 68 2 Tim 2:5. 69 2 Cor 5:17; 2 Pet 1:4; cf. Gal 4:5-7. 70 Cf. 1 Cor 6:15; 12:27; Rom 8:17. 71 Cf. 1 Cor 6:19. 72 Eph 4:25. 73 1 Cor 12:13. 74 1 Pet 2:5. 75 1 Pet 2:9. 76 Cf. 1 Cor 6:19; 2 Cor 5:15. 77 Heb 13:17. 78 Cf. Eph 5:21; 1 Cor 16:15-16; 1 Thess 5:12-13; Jn 13:12-15. 79 Cf. LG 37; CIC, cann. 208-223; CCEO, can. 675:2. 80 LG 11; cf. LG 17; AG 7; 23. 81 UR 3. 82 UR 22 2. 83 Cf. Rom 8:29; Council of Trent (1547): DS 1609-1619. 84 Cf. LG 11. 85 Cf. LG 10. 86 St. Augustine, Ep. 98,5:PL 33,362; Eph 4:30; cf. 1:13-14; 2 Cor 1:21-22. 87 St. Irenaeus, Dem ap. 3:SCh 62,32. 88 Roman Missal, EP I (Roman Canon) 97.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp The Necessity of Baptism

Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:34, Col. 2:1112). Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257). The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6). Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism. Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 12601, 1283). As the following passages from the works of the Church Fathers illustrate, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.

Hermas

"I have heard, sir, said I [to the Shepherd], from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins. He said to me, You have heard rightly, for so it is" (The Shepherd 4:3:12 [A.D. 80]).

Justin Martyr

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Tertullian

"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptismwhich is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishesby taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]). "Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (ibid., 12). "We have, indeed, a second [baptismal] font which is one with the former [water baptism]: namely, that of blood, of which the Lord says: I am to be baptized with a baptism [Luke 12:50], when he had already been baptized. He had come through water and blood, as John wrote [1 John 5:6], so that he might be baptized with water and glorified with blood. . . . This is the baptism which replaces that of the fountain, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost" (ibid., 16).

Hippolytus

"[P]erhaps someone will ask, What does it conduce unto piety to be baptized? In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to God; in the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the [prophet] has sworn to us: Amen, I say to you, unless you are born again with living water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water for his own salvation" (Homilies 11:26 [A.D. 217]).

Origen

"It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism" (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]).

Cyprian of Carthage "[T]he baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church." (Letters 72[73]:21 [A.D. 253]). "[Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another baptism with which he himself was to be baptized [Luke 12:50]" (ibid., 72[73]:22).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom. . . . For the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism, saying, Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized [Mark 10:38]? Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men [1 Cor. 4:9]" (Catechetical Lectures 3:10 [A.D. 350]).

Gregory Nazianz

"[Besides the baptisms associated with Moses, John, and Jesus] I know also a fourth baptism, that by martyrdom and blood, by which also Christ himself was baptized. This one is far more august than the others, since it cannot be defiled by later sins" (Oration on the Holy Lights 39:17 [A.D. 381]).

Pope Siricius

"It would tend to the ruin of our souls if, from our refusal of the saving font of baptism to those who seek it, any of them should depart this life and lose the kingdom and eternal life" (Letter to Himerius 3 [A.D. 385]).

John Chrysostom

"Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a baptism, for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood" (Panegyric on St. Lucian 2 [A.D. 387]).

Ambrose of Milan

"But I hear you lamenting because he [the Emperor Valentinian] had not received the sacraments of baptism. Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this desire, and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest [Wis. 4:7]?" (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

"There are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized" (Sermons to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15 [A.D. 395]). "I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:4448], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:1319]" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21:28 [A.D. 400]). "That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, Today you shall be with me in paradise [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart [i.e., baptism of desire] if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism" (ibid., 4:22:29). "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body. . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark [by baptism of desire]" (ibid., 5:28:39). "[According to] apostolic tradition . . . the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal. This is the witness of Scripture too" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]). "Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christit avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven [John 3:5], made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven [Matt. 10:32]" (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).

Pope Leo I

"And because of the transgression of the first man, the whole stock of the human race was tainted; no one can be set free from the state of the old Adam save through Christs sacrament of baptism, in which there are no distinctions between the reborn, as the apostle [Paul] says, For as many of you as were baptized in Christ did put on Christ; there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . [Gal. 3:2728]" (Letters 15:10[11] [A.D. 445]).

Fulgentius of Ruspe

"From that time at which our Savior said, If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven [John 3:5], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptismal_Grace.asp

Baptismal Grace

Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:14; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:2627; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:1112; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:1822). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect. Despite this wealth of evidence, Protestants are almost equally unanimous in rejecting this truth. In general Protestants regard baptism as something like an ordinance: an observance that does not itself bring about any spiritual effect but merely represents that effect. Its observance may be required by obedience, but it is not necessary in any further sensecertainly not for salvation. This view requires Protestants to explain away all the New Testament passages on the nature of baptism as figurative language. It is not baptism itself, they assert, but what baptism represents, that really saves us. Yet the language of the New Testament on this point is so uniform that they cannot even dredge up a couple of "proof-texts" on baptism to support this view or their figurative reading of all the other passages. There is one text that Protestants occasionally mention. In 1 Corinthians 1:1417 Paul wrote that he was glad that he himself had baptized so few of the Corinthians, since they could not say that they were baptized in his name; and he went on to say, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the

gospel. . . ." Needless to say, this passage doesnt say anything about baptism only representing spiritual realities, or not really saving. It doesnt say anything about how those who accepted Pauls preaching of the gospel were then saved. Paul didnt write, "For I was not sent to baptize but to pray with people to accept Jesus as their personal Savior" (or even "to lead people to faith"). Paul didnt pit faith against baptism. Nor did he pit preaching against baptism. He would hardly have contradicted the great commission in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Pauls point was not that God didnt want him to baptize, only that preaching was the driving force of his evangelistic ministry. In short, Pauls remark doesnt remotely support the Protestant view of baptism, or justify a figurative interpretation of all the other passages. Yet this is the closest thing to a Protestant proof-text! The early Fathers were equally unanimous in affirming baptism as a means of grace. They all recognized the Bibles teaching that "[In the ark] a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:2021, emphasis added). Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "From the beginning baptism was the universally accepted rite of admission to the Church. . . . As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins . . . we descend into the water dead and come out again alive; we receive a white robe which symbolizes the Spirit . . .the Spirit is God himself dwelling in the believer, and the resulting life is a re-creation. Prior to baptism . . . our heart was the abode of demons . . . [but] baptism supplies us with the weapons for our spiritual warfare" (Early Christian Doctrines, 1934).

The Letter of Barnabas

"Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:36]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross. Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls" (Letter of Barnabas 11:110 [A.D. 74]).

Hermas

"I have heard, sir, said I, from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins. He said to me, You have heard rightly, for so it is" (The Shepherd 4:3:12 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

"Let none of you turn deserter. Let your baptism be your armor; your faith, your helmet; your love, your spear; your patient endurance, your panoply" (Letter to Polycarp 6 [A.D. 110]).

Second Clement

"For, if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey his commandments. . . . [W]ith what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works? (Second Clement 6:79 [A.D. 150]).

Justin Martyr

"Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" (First Apology 61:1417 [A.D. 151]).

Theophilus of Antioch

"Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regenerationall who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God" (To Autolycus 12:16 [A.D. 181]).

Clement of Alexandria

"When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal . . . and sons of the Most High [Ps. 82:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1 [A.D. 191]).

Tertullian

"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptismwhich is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishesby taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]). ... "Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins" (ibid., 7:2).

Hippolytus

"And the bishop shall lay his hand upon them [the newly baptized], invoking and saying: O Lord God, who did count these worthy of deserving the forgiveness of sins by the laver of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit and send upon them thy grace [in confirmation], that they may serve you according to your will" (The Apostolic Tradition 22:1 [A.D. 215]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"While I was lying in darkness . . . I thought it indeed difficult and hard to believe . . . that divine mercy was promised for my salvation, so that anyone might be born again and quickened unto a new life by the laver of the saving water, he might put off what he had been before, and, although the structure of the body remained, he might change himself in soul and mind. . . . But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the water of rebirth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart; afterwards, through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a second birth made of me a new man" (To Donatus 34 [A.D. 246]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

"From baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and he descends and rests upon the waters, and those who are baptized are clothed in him. The Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of

rebirth, and then they receive the Holy Spirit. . . . [I]n the second birth, that through baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit" (Treatises 6:14:4 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive baptism, for the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism [Mark 10:38]. . . . Bearing your sins, you go down into the water; but the calling down of grace seals your soul and does not permit that you afterwards be swallowed up by the fearsome dragon. You go down dead in your sins, and you come up made alive in righteousness" (Catechetical Lectures 3:10, 12 [A.D. 350]).

Basil the Great

"For prisoners, baptism is ransom, forgiveness of debts, the death of sin, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a royal protector, a gift of adoption" (Sermons on Moral and Practical Subjects 13:5 [A.D. 379]).

Council of Constantinople I

"We believe . . . in one baptism for the remission of sins" (Nicene Creed [A.D. 381]).

Ambrose of Milan

"The Lord was baptized, not to be cleansed himself but to cleanse the waters, so that those waters, cleansed by the flesh of Christ which knew no sin, might have the power of baptism. Whoever comes, therefore, to the washing of Christ lays aside his sins" (Commentary on Luke 2:83 [A.D. 389]).

Augustine

"It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christs body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).

"The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (ibid., 2:27:43). "Baptism washes away all, absolutely all, our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted" (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3:3:5 [A.D. 420]). "This is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism, which is celebrated among us: all who attain to this grace die thereby to sinas he himself [Jesus] is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh (that is, in the likeness of sin)and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no matter what the age of the body. For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old mansince no one should be barred from baptismjust so, there is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love 13[41] [A.D. 421]).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp Born Again in Baptism

One key Scripture reference to being "born again" or "regenerated" is John 3:5, where Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." This verse is so important that those who say baptism is just a symbol must deny that Jesus here refers to baptism. "Born again" Christians claim the "water" is the preached word of God. But the early Christians uniformly identified this verse with baptism. Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and receive new lifea fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:34; Col. 2:1213; Titus 3:5). No Church Father referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism.

Justin Martyr

"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

"And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Tertullian

"[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life" (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

Hippolytus

"The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism" (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 [A.D. 217]).

The Recognitions of Clement

"But you will perhaps say, What does the baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God? In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (The Recognitions of Clement 6:9 [A.D. 221]).

Testimonies Concerning the Jews

"That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God. In the Gospel according to John: Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5]. . . . Also in the same place: Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and

drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you [John 6:53]. That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works" (Testimonies Concerning the Jews 3:2:2526 [A.D. 240]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"[When] they receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (Letters 71[72]:1 [A.D. 253]).

Council of Carthage VII

"And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. . . . Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ" (Seventh Carthage [A.D. 256]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul. . . . When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter. And he says, Unless a man be born again, and he adds the words of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it" (Catechetical Lectures 3:4 [A.D. 350]).

Athanasius

"[A]s we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened" (Four Discourses Against the Arians 3:26[33] [A.D. 360]).

Basil the Great

"This then is what it means to be born again of water and Spirit: Just as our dying is effected in the water [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:1213], our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of invocations the great mystery of baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the Spirits presence there" (The Holy Spirit 15:35 [A.D. 375]).

Ambrose of Milan

"Although we are baptized with water and the Spirit, the latter is much superior to the former, and is not therefore to be separated from the Father and the Son. There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God" (The Holy Spirit 1:6[7576] [A.D. 381]). "The Church was redeemed at the price of Christs blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins [in baptism (Col. 2:1112)] so that he can be saved . . . for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the sacrament of baptism. . . . Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Abraham 2:11:7984 [A.D. 387]). "You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in baptism are one: water, blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8): And if you withdraw any one of these, the sacrament of baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water, for unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (The Mysteries 4:20 [A.D. 390]).

Gregory of Nyssa

"[In] the birth by water and the Spirit, [Jesus] himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by his own baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things he became the firstborn of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to his own by water and the Spirit" (Against Eunomius 2:8 [A.D. 382]).

John Chrysostom

"[N]o one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit,

and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head [the Mystical Body of Christ]" (The Priesthood 3:56 [A.D. 387]).

Gregory of Nazianz

"Such is the grace and power of baptism; not an overwhelming of the world as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin. And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the Spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths" (Oration on Holy Baptism 78 [A.D. 388]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

"Be ye likewise contented with one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord [Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:1213]. . . . [H]e that out of contempt will not be baptized shall be condemned as an unbeliever and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says, Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again, He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned" [Mark 16:16] (Apostolic Constitutions 6:3:15 [A.D. 400]).

Augustine

"It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him, but, Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit. The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 412]). "Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christit avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven, made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven" [Matt. 10:32] (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).

http://www.catholic.com/library/are_catholics_born_again.asp Are Catholics Born Again?

Catholics and Protestants agree that to be saved, you have to be born again. Jesus said so: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). When a Catholic says that he has been "born again," he refers to the transformation that Gods grace accomplished in him during baptism. Evangelical Protestants typically mean something quite different when they talk about being "born again." For an Evangelical, becoming "born again" often happens like this: He goes to a crusade or a revival where a minister delivers a sermon telling him of his need to be "born again." "If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and believe he died for your sins, youll be born again!" says the preacher. So the gentleman makes "a decision for Christ" and at the altar call goes forward to be led in "the sinners prayer" by the minister. Then the minister tells all who prayed the sinners prayer that they have been saved"born again." But is the minister right? Not according to the Bible.

The Names of the New Birth

Regeneration (being "born again") is the transformation from death to life that occurs in our souls when we first come to God and are justified. He washes us clean of our sins and gives us a new nature, breaking the power of sin over us so that we will no longer be its slaves, but its enemies, who must fight it as part of the Christian life (cf. Rom. 6:122; Eph. 6:1117). To understand the biblical teaching of being born again, we must understand the terms it uses to refer to this event. The term "born again" may not appear in the Bible. The Greek phrase often translated "born again" (gennatha anothen) occurs twice in the BibleJohn 3:3 and 3:7and there is a question of how it should be translated. The Greek word anothen sometimes can be translated "again," but in the New Testament, it most often means "from above." In the King James Version, the only two times it is translated "again" are in John 3:3 and 3:7; every other time it is given a different rendering. Another term is "regeneration." When referring to something that occurs in the life of an individual believer, it only appears in Titus 3:5. In other passages, the new birth phenomenon is also described as receiving new life (Rom. 6:4), receiving the circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:1112), and becoming a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15).

Regeneration in John 3

These different ways of talking about being "born again" describe effects of baptism, which Christ speaks

of in John 3:5 as being "born of water and the Spirit." In Greek, this phrase is, literally, "born of water and Spirit," indicating one birth of water-and-Spirit, rather than "born of water and of the Spirit," as though it meant two different birthsone birth of water and one birth of the Spirit. In the water-and-Spirit rebirth that takes place at baptism, the repentant sinner is transformed from a state of sin to the state of grace. Peter mentioned this transformation from sin to grace when he exhorted people to "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). The context of Jesus statements in John 3 makes it clear that he was referring to water baptism. Shortly before Jesus teaches Nicodemus about the necessity and regenerating effect of baptism, he himself was baptized by John the Baptist, and the circumstances are striking: Jesus goes down into the water, and as he is baptized, the heavens open, the Holy Spirit descends upon him in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father speaks from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son" (cf. Matt. 3:1317; Mark 1:911; Luke 3:2122; John 1:3034). This scene gives us a graphic depiction of what happens at baptism: We are baptized with water, symbolizing our dying with Christ (Rom. 6:3) and our rising with Christ to the newness of life (Rom. 6:45); we receive the gift of sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27); and we are adopted as Gods sons (Rom. 8:1517). After our Lords teaching that it is necessary for salvation to be born from above by water and the Spirit (John 3:121), "Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized" (John 3:22). Then we have the witness of the early Church that John 3:5 refers to baptismal regeneration. This was universally recognized by the early Christians. The Church Fathers were unanimous in teaching this: In A.D. 151, Justin Martyr wrote, "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true . . . are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61). Around 190, Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, wrote, "And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34). In the year 252, Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, said that when those becoming Christians "receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5]" (Letters 71[72]:1). Augustine wrote, "From the time he [Jesus] said, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven [John 3:5], and again, He that loses his life for my sake shall find it [Matt. 10:39], no one becomes a member of Christ except it be either by baptism in Christ or death for Christ" (On the Soul and Its Origin 1:10 [A.D. 419]).

Augustine also taught, "It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents or by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him, but, Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit [John 3:5]. The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).

Regeneration in the New Testament

The truth that regeneration comes through baptism is confirmed elsewhere in the Bible. Paul reminds us in Titus 3:5 that God "saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit." Paul also said, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 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" (Rom. 6:34). This teachingthat baptism unites us with Christs death and resurrection so that we might die to sin and receive new lifeis a key part of Pauls theology. In Colossians 2:1113, he tells us, "In [Christ] you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision [of] Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ" (NIV).

The Effects of Baptism

Often people miss the fact that baptism gives us new life/new birth because they have an impoverished view of the grace God gives us through baptism, which they think is a mere symbol. But Scripture is clear that baptism is much more than a mere symbol. In Acts 2:38, Peter tells us, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." When Paul was converted, he was told, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). Peter also said, "Gods patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:2021). Peter says that, as in the time of the flood, when eight people were "saved through water," so for Christians, "[b]aptism . . . now saves you." It does not do so by the waters physical action, but through the power of Jesus Christs resurrection, through baptisms spiritual effects and the appeal we make to God to have our consciences cleansed.

These verses showing the supernatural grace God bestows through baptism set the context for understanding the New Testaments statements about receiving new life in the sacrament.

Protestants on Regeneration

Martin Luther wrote in his Short Catechism that baptism "works the forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and grants eternal life to all who believe." His recognition that the Bible teaches baptismal regeneration has been preserved by Lutherans and a few other Protestant denominations. Even some Baptists recognize that the biblical evidence demands the historic Christian teaching of baptismal regeneration. Notable individuals who recognized that Scripture teaches baptismal regeneration include Baptist theologians George R. Beasley-Murray and Dale Moody. Nevertheless, many Protestants have abandoned this biblical teaching, substituting man-made theories on regeneration. There are two main views held by those who deny the scriptural teaching that one is born again through baptism: the "Evangelical" view, common among Baptists, and the "Calvinist" view, common among Presbyterians. Evangelicals claim that one is born again at the first moment of faith in Christ. According to this theory, faith in Christ produces regeneration. The Calvinist position is the reverse: Regeneration precedes and produces faith in Christ. Calvinists (some of whom also call themselves Evangelicals) suppose that God "secretly" regenerates people, without their being aware of it, and this causes them to place their faith in Christ. To defend these theories, Evangelicals and Calvinists attempt to explain away the many unambiguous verses in the Bible that plainly teach baptismal regeneration. One strategy is to say that the water in John 3:5 refers not to baptism but to the amniotic fluid present at childbirth. The absurd implication of this view is that Jesus would have been saying, "You must be born of amniotic fluid and the Spirit." A check of the respected Protestant Greek lexicon, Kittels Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, fails to turn up any instances in ancient, Septuagint or New Testament Greek where "water" (Greek: hudor) referred to "amniotic fluid" (VIII:314333). Evangelicals and Calvinists try to deal with the other verses where new life is attributed to baptism either by ignoring them or by arguing that it is not actually water baptism that is being spoken of. The problem for them is that water is explicitly mentioned or implied in each of these verses. In Acts 2:38, people are exhorted to take an action: "Be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus Christ," which does not refer to an internal baptism that is administered to people by themselves, but the external baptism administered to them by others. We are told that at Pauls conversion, "he rose and was baptized, and took food and was strengthened. For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus" (Acts 9:1819). This was a water baptism. In Romans 6 and Colossians 2, Paul reminds his readers of their water baptisms, and he neither says nor implies anything about some sort of "invisible spiritual baptism." In 1 Peter 3, water is mentioned twice, paralleling baptism with the flood, where eight were "saved through water," and noting that "baptism now saves you" by the power of Christ rather than by the physical action of water "removing . . . dirt from the body."

The anti-baptismal regeneration position is indefensible. It has no biblical basis whatsoever. So the answer to the question, "Are Catholics born again?" is yes! Since all Catholics have been baptized, all Catholics have been born again. Catholics should ask Protestants, "Are you born againthe way the Bible understands that concept?" If the Evangelical has not been properly water baptized, he has not been born again "the Bible way," regardless of what he may think.

http://users.binary.net/polycarp/baptism.html

Baptism, Infants and Salvation "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." Matthew 28:19-20 Some Christians claim that according to the Bible, we do not need to be baptized in order to be saved, i.e. go to heaven. They claim that accepting Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior is enough (sufficient) for our personal salvation. Even some consider the Catholic Church a cult for teaching on the necessity of baptism for salvation. On a similar issue, some object to infant baptism, claiming it to be invalid since an infant is too young to willfully accept Jesus. To address these issues on baptism, we need to begin with the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. First in John's Gospel, Jesus said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit (i.e. baptized), he cannot enter the kingdom of God." [John 3:5; RSV] In Mark's Gospel just before Christ ascended into heaven, He told His disciples: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." [Mark 16:16] At the end of Matthew's Gospel, Christ commanded the Apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." [Matt. 28:19] This command from Jesus would be a waste of time if we were saved by merely accepting or trusting in Him. In the second chapter of Acts, the Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit. St. Peter stood up and addressed the crowd. After telling them that God made Jesus, whom they crucified, both Lord and Messiah, they were shakened and asked "what shall we do?" St. Peter answered: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to Him." [Acts 2:38-39] It is interesting to note that baptism and repentance are both connected to the forgiveness of personal sins

- a key step towards salvation. Also noteworthy, this promise includes children; no age requirements are stated. The only requirement stated is "every one whom the Lord our God calls to Him" and not whoever is old enough to accept Jesus. Later St. Peter also wrote: ...in the days of Noah,...eight persons were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,... [1 Peter 3:20-21] This Bible passage explicitly states that baptism "now saves you." St. Paul also taught on the importance of baptism for salvation. In Acts 16:25-34, the jailer of Paul and Silas asked, "Men, what must I do to be saved?" [Acts 16:30]. Paul and Silas verbally replied: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." [Acts 16:31] However, almost immediately during the midnight hour, Paul and Silas continued their answer not by words but by action: ...and he (the jailer) was baptized at once, with all his family. [Acts 16:33] Now these baptisms were performed with a sense of urgency. If baptism were not necessary for salvation, then why did St. Paul baptize the jailer and his family almost immediately during the midnight hour? Since baptism is a one-time event for a person, it was more expedient for St. Paul to simply baptize the whole family than to tell the jailer that baptism is necessary for salvation. This particular passage leads into the second issue: infant baptism. Even though the Bible does not directly address the issue of infant baptism, it does record the baptisms of three different families. As quoted above all of the jailer's family were baptized (Acts 16:33). Also the family of Lydia (Acts 16:15) and the family of Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16) were baptized. Typically a family includes children. These three passages infer infant baptism, even though they may not explicitly indicate the baptism of children. There are no indications that only adults were involved. Now it is possible that a family may be childless; however, the chance that these three families had at least one young child is greater than the chance that all three had no children. A Christian, who objects to infant baptism, must interpret these three Bible passages with the assumption that each family had no young children. Some may object to infant baptism since they claim that a person receiving it should be able to believe or have faith in Christ. Supposedly infants and young children cannot believe in Christ. Christ actually makes reference to little children who believe: ...but whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to sin... [Matt 18:6] Elsewhere Jesus said: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it. [Luke 18:16-17; also see Matt 11:25] According to Jesus little children not only can believe but can have a faith superior to adults. Finally heaven may belong to children but we can still hinder their encounter with Jesus.

It should be stressed that nowhere in the Bible does it condemn infant baptism. Likewise nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly state that only adult baptisms are valid. St. Paul in Col. 2:11-12 actually compares baptism to circumcision - an important religious ceremony for infant boys. (Jewish circumcision is anatomically inappropriate for girls.) St. Irenaeus in 190 A.D. acknowledged infant baptism in his book, Against Heresies (II 22:4). The custom of infant baptism dates back to the time of the Apostles as witnessed by Origen in the third century. St. Cyprian of Carthage in the third century and St. John Chrysostom in the fourth century encouraged infant baptism. It should be noted that during the third century, Christians were still dying for the faith and did not tolerate any novel teachings. Finally some may still object since the Bible does not record an actual infant baptism. However it should be remembered that St. John admitted to the fact that not everything Jesus or the Apostles did or taught were written down in the Bible (John 20:30; 21:25; 2 John 12; 3 John 13-14). Now what happens to infants who die unbaptized? The answer to this question has not been revealed by God; however, we can be confident in God's justice and mercy that they are not condemned to hell. The "Limbo of Children" is theological speculation and has not been defined as doctrine by the Church. It must be rightfully understood that we are saved by grace - a free gift from God due to Christ's death on the cross (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8). We are not merely saved by accepting Jesus as our personal Lord and Savior (Matt 7:21-23). Our faith in Christ, our acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior, our good works and our repentance of personal sins are the fruits of actual grace - God working through us but respecting our free will (Phil 2:12-13; John 15:5; 2 Cor 6:1). Through baptism we are born again by receiving sanctifying grace which makes us right with God (1 Cor 6:11). Whether we are baptized as adults or our parents baptized us as infants, salvation is still a free gift - an inheritance (1Cor 6:9-10). Whether adults or infants, we cannot accept Christ or even salvation without God's grace. However as adults we can freely reject God's grace and salvation through sin. Baptism does not earn or guarantee our salvation. Even though eternal life in Christ Jesus (salvation) is a free gift, we can still earn death (damnation) through serious, willful sin (Rom 6:23; Heb 10:26-27; 1 John 5:16-17; Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp Infant Baptism

Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Churchs practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a "born again" experiencethat is, after one has "accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance, when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway. As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the persons conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order

to reach heaven. Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sinonly original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons. Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Christ Calls All to Baptism

Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers") echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christs law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14). More detail is given in Lukes account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:1516). Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: "to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let them come unto me," who are we to

say "no," and withhold baptism from them?

In Place of Circumcision

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:1112). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism. This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Pauls reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

Were Only Adults Baptized? Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed, they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning, even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginningthere were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes. Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we nevernot even oncefind an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Specific Biblical References? But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Pauls preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture. Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

Catholics From the First

The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

No Cry of "Invention!"

None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be whenexactlyan infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it? But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:1920), but his general law on the necessity of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers. Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation.

He can thus scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument of salvation. It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bibles strictures, but of the demands of Fundamentalisms idea of salvation. In reality, the Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who criticize the Catholic Churchs teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians, who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

Early Teachings on Infant Baptism

Although many Protestant traditions baptize babies, Baptistsand "Bible churches" in the Baptist traditioninsist that baptism is only for those who have come to faith. Nowhere in the New Testament, they point out, do we read of infants being baptized. On the other hand, nowhere do we read of children raised in believing households reaching the age of reason and then being baptized. The only explicit baptism accounts in the Bible involve converts from Judaism or paganism. For children of believers there is no explicit mention of baptismeither in infancy or later. This poses a problem for Baptists and Bible Christians: On what basis do they require children of believers to be baptized at all? Given the silence of the New Testament, why not assume Christian baptism is only for adult converts? This, of course, would be contrary to historical Christian practice. But so is rejecting infant baptism. As we will see, there is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism; and no Christian objections to this practice were ever voiced until the Reformation. The New Testament itself, while it does not explicitly say when (or whether) believers should have their children baptized, is not silent on the subject. Luke 18:1516 tells us that "they were bringing even infants" to Jesus; and he himself related this to the kingdom of God: "Let the children come to me . . . for to such belongs the kingdom of God." When Baptists speak of "bringing someone to Jesus," they mean leading him to faith. But Jesus says "even infants" can be "brought" to him. Even Baptists dont claim their practice of "dedicating" babies does this. The fact is, the Bible gives us no way of bringing anyone to Jesus apart from baptism. Thus Peter declared, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children" (Acts 2:3839).

The apostolic Church baptized whole "households" (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mentionnor excludeinfants, the very use of the term "households" indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the unbelieving spouse "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14). Does this mean unbelieving spouses should be baptized? Of course not. The kingdom of God is not theirs; they cannot be "brought to Christ" in their unbelief. But infants have no such impediment. The kingdom is theirs, Jesus says, and they should be brought to him; and this means baptism. Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, or "the circumcision of Christ": "In him you were also circumcised with . . . the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:1112). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but "baptism . . . now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:21). The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Churchwhere infant baptism was uniformly upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision! (See quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Leviticus 12:23.) Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptisms had been deferred until the age of reason. For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus writings below (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna at that timePolycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.

Irenaeus

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]). "And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Hippolytus

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]). "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]). "If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

Gregory of Nazianz

"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

"Well enough, some will say, for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too? Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).

John Chrysostom

"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christs] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]). "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). "Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]). "By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christs] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christs Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Carthage V

"Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).

Council of Mileum II

"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7067.asp

Infant Baptism Jordan Bajis

"Should I be baptized again" Many renewed Orthodox Christians have asked themselves and others whether they should be baptized as adults. I readily understand why this question is asked, for I myself must admit that I did not always feel comfortable about the Orthodox Church baptizing infants. I asked myself several other questions as well: "How can an infant 'believe and be baptized'?" "Where in Scripture does it show an infant being baptized?" "Is not the baptizing of infants the reason why the contemporary Orthodox Church has a need for renewal and re-evangelization?" These questions were so significant to me that I refused to actively support or encourage the practice of infant baptism until I was able to get some satisfactory answers. On one occasion I even rejected the honor of being the best man at a close friend's wedding unless he was willing to absolve me of the accompanying responsibility of being the baptismal sponsor for his first child. Only after he agreed to my request did I consent to become his best man. Knowing that as a committed Christian I could not refrain indefinitely from making a decision on this matter, I embarked on an intensive study of Scripture and early Christian history. I resolved that I would not finish

my study until I had settled the issue in my mind and in my heart. Surprisingly, the area was much more complex than I first envisioned it to be. I must admit at the outset it looked as though the argument for infant baptism was about as valid as the theory that the earth was cigar-shaped. However, I uncovered many facts that are usually unknown to the common layman and which I think will prove helpful for those who are now in a doctrinal dilemma similar to the one I was in previously. I can now say, after having looked into the arguments of some of the most respected scholars on this subject, that there is a very strong case for the baptism of infants of Christian parents. Before I begin to share some of the things I discovered, I think it is important to note that, although I have dedicated months to the thorough study of this subject, I do not pretend to be a theologian, professor of Church history, or Greek scholar. I am not an expert on the subject; I am a student of the subject. It is also important to note, however, that the evidences and arguments I produce here are, in the main, not my own but rather a synthesis of research and conclusions distilled from several noteworthy scholars. It is not my purpose to be overly technical, to illustrate the minute peculiarity of each counter-argument's counter-argument, or to take the reader back to study the original documents in order to discuss grammatical controversies surrounding the texts. It is not that I consider these types of investigations unimportant, but I simply restrained myself from doing this because I do not think it is very profitable for the average layman. The scholars are much better qualified than I to define and explain these more exacting details, in any case. Given this preface, let me get to the point of the article. How is it that I can now recognize infant baptism as a valid practice whereas before I was highly distrustful of it? I will record a number of reasons for this below in as straightforward and direct a way as I know. Some facts will require a bit of explanation, but many will consist of only a sentence or two. At the close of the list, I will offer some concluding thoughts and insights about infant baptism. I have categorized the evidence supporting the practice of infant baptism into three main sections: Scripture, History, and the Fathers of the Early Church. I recognize that each argument may not be able to stand on its own, but taken together they present a conclusive picture. SCRIPTURE Peter's Sermon The first time the Gospel was ever proclaimed was on the day of Pentecost by the Apostle Peter. In his Spirit-inspired sermon he made it clear that the blessing and promise of salvation was not just for adults, but for children as well. "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself " (Acts 2:38,39). It is also interesting to note that this quote from Peter's Pentecostal sermon does not merely state "... the promise is for you and children," but "for you and your children," which makes it clear that the children mentioned here were young enough to still be considered under the protection and authority of their parents. This is underscored when one understands that it was common for women and men to marry at the very young ages of twelve and thirteen, respectively. From this it becomes reasonable to assume that these children to whom Peter refers were young juveniles or, at the very least, in their preadolescence. The Baptism of Households Although this is only indirect Scriptural evidence, the fact that the Bible mentions that entire "households" were baptized does make it seem probable that children and infants were included. "Now I did baptize the household of Stephanas . . . " (1 Corinthians 1:16) (An angel spoke to Cornelius saying) "Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is called Peter, brought here; and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved,

and all your household " (Later, when Peter arrived at (Cornelius' household) "... he ordered them to be baptized."(Acts 11:13b, 14; Acts 10:48a) "And when she (Lydia of Thyatira) and her household had been baptized . . . " (Acts 16:15a) "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household . . . and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. " (Acts 16:31, 33b) We know that the Greek word oikos, translated "house" or "household," has traditionally included infants and children in its meaning for several reasons. There is no evidence of this word being used either in secular Greek, Biblical Greek,or in the writing of Hellenistic Judaism in a way which would restrict its meaning only to adults. The Old Testament parallel for "house" carries the sense of the entire family. The Greek translation of the original Hebrew manuscripts (completed in 250 B.C.) uses this word when translating the Hebrew word meaning the complete family (men, women, children, infants). Similarly, we know that the phrase "he and his house" refers to the total family; the Old Testament use of this phrase clearly demonstrates this by specifically mentioning the presence of children and infants at times. No Baptism of Older Children of Christian Parents Recorded If the baptism of infants was not acceptable during New Testament times, then when does Scripture mention the alternative - the baptism of the children of Christian parents once they have matured out of infancy? The Bible never gives one example of the baptism of a Christian child as an adult. It is important that Scripture also does not speak of an "age of accountability or reason" (which many pinpoint at 13 years) when a child's capacity to believe the Gospel is developed enough so that he can receive baptism. Neither does the Bible state that every child is in a "suspended state of salvation" until they have reached this age, which one would have to believe if he held to the "age of accountability" theory. The Saving Power of Christ's Presence in Holy Baptism Although an opponent of infant baptism, Dr. Jewett, in his book Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, makes a very logical conclusion about baptism if it is understood to be a release of supernatural power: "... one believes that baptism washes away the guilt of eternal sin, so that any one departing this life without it is in danger of eternal damnation, he will have good reason to conclude that infants should be baptized. In fact, the question of infant baptism can hardly be raised without such a sacramental theology, since an affirmative answer is a foregone conclusion." Certainly if there were a taint of sin upon each who is born in this world, there would be a need for every person to be cleansed from this impurity before leaving the temporal life. The Bible's "sacramental theology" states that there is such a need since "... through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men." (Romans 5:12) For this reason " ... there are none righteous, not even one" (i.e. not infants). (Romans 3:10) How are these young ones saved from the sin they have received from Adam's race? They are saved through the regenerative power of baptism and the faith of the Church (i.e. the Christian faithful): "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration baptism) and renewing by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5) "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." (Acts 2:38) "Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.' " (John 3:5) "... when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water, and corresponding to that, baptism now

saves you." (1 Peter 3:20,21) Baptism is not just a symbolic testimony of what God has done in the heart of an adult believer, but is in itself a dynamic means of actually effecting the power of the Gospel (the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) in a life (Romans 6:4). Christian baptism is the means whereby we encounter and identify with Jesus Christ Himself. This is one of the reasons why Paul explains baptism as the manner in which we genuinely "put on" or "clothe" ourselves with Christ (Galatians 3:27). This is not just a metaphor, the Lord actually transforms a person through his baptism. The Old Testament Symbols of Salvation and Baptism Include Infants: 1. Circumcision, the sign of God's covenant between the people of Abraham and Himself, was performed on every male child who was eight days old (Genesis 17:12). Many see a direct parallel between circumcision and Christian baptism in Scriptural passages such as Colossians 2:11,12: "And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism ..." If baptism is the "New Testament circumcision" there can definitely be no objection to "sealing" the infant of a consecrated Christian family in Christ's New Covenant. 2. Moses' leading his people through the Red Sea is seen as an Old Testament foreshadowing of Christian baptism. The following New Testament passage clearly points to this: "For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:1-4) It is worthwhile to note that "all were baptized" through Moses' leadership in crossing over the Red Sea. He did not leave the infants or children on the shores of Egypt to become prey to the angry armies of Pharaoh because they were not old enough to believe in the promise of the Old Covenant. Rather, entrusted to the arms of their parents' faith, they were carried through the "baptism of Moses." 3. The saving of Noah's entire family by the ark can also be seen as a prefigurement of a baptism which includes infants. All that needs to be said, as in the case of Moses' passing through the Red Sea, is that the entire family was on board the ark. Why should we leave infants out of the ark of baptism? Secular Philosophy Redefines "Faith" and "Personhood" Larry Christenson, in his pamphlet "What About Baptism", quotes Edmund Schlink (author of The Doctrine of Baptism) as stating that the rejection of infant baptism was based on the secular philosophy of the sixteenth century which assured man's individuality, and was not the result of a new Scriptural inquiry: "'Belier was seen in rationalistic and volitional terms, as an act of the mind and the will. 'Because an infant cannot think or decide, it cannot have faith, and therefore should not be baptized.' To this day. that is the only argument raised against the validity of infant baptism. One tosses off the sentence as though it were self-evident truth: 'A child can't believe.' But that 'truth,' upon examination, is neither self-evident, nor is it Biblical." As Christenson goes on to say, faith is not merely a product of reason but relation. It is a relationship of love and trust, a relationship which is not limited to the mind. Some Scriptures which support the possibility of an "infant faith" are these: "Yet Thou are He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother's breast." (Psalm 22:9) "And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if with

a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea." (Mark 9:42) "For behold, when the sound of your greeting [Theotokos] reached my ears [Elizabeth], the baby [John the Baptist] leaped in my womb for joy." (Luke 1:44) CHURCH HISTORY * Polycarp stated at his martyrdom (167/8 A.D.) that he had been in the "service of Christ" for eighty-six years. Other recorded dates from Polycarp's life make it likely that eighty-six years was his age from birth. Jaochim Jeremias, in The Origins of Infant Baptism, concludes the following from these facts: "This shows at any rate that his parents were already Christians, or at least were converted quite soon after his birth. His parents were pagans at his birth, he would have been baptized with the 'house' at their conversion. But even if his parents were Christians, the words 'service of Christ for eighty-six years' supports a baptism soon after his birth rather than one as a child of 'mature years' ... for which there is no evidence at all." * Jeremias supposes something similar for Polycrates of Ephesus. In 190/91, when writing to Rome concerning the dispute over Easter, Polycrates states that he is "sixty five years in the Lord." Since this reference to his age is made "because of his concern for his long unimpeachable Christian standing," Jeremias postulates that his baptism "took place soon after birth, rather than that there was an age limit for baptism." * Justin Martyr gives still another testimony to the practice of infant baptism by stating that many old men and women of sixty and seventy years of age had been disciples of Christ from childhood. * No incident is recorded in the earliest of Christian history which gives evidence that baptism was forbidden to any person on the basis of an age limit, or that the right of a Christian parent to have his children baptized had ever been challenged or renounced. * Although several examples exist from the third century of the children of Christians being baptized as infants, in all of the literature and collections of inscriptions from that century there is not a single example of Christian parents delaying the baptism of their children. * Neither the Ebionites, Novatians, Arians, Donatists, Montanists, nor any other early heresy refuted infant baptism; many were even noted as practicing it. * A significant parallel exists between Jewish proselyte baptism (when pagans were converted to Judaism) and early Christian baptism. The contacts between early Christian baptism and proselyte baptism, with the similarities in terminology, interpretation, symbolism, and the rite itself, are especially notable. What is of greatest interest, however, is that the baptism of the early Church followed that of proselyte baptism, in which children and infants were baptized with the convert's family. This is especially significant when one realizes that the very early Church was made up primarily of converted Jews. * There is no evidence that anyone being against infant baptism in the early Church on the grounds that you must first "believe" and be baptized. Tertulian (160 230 A.D.), was the only one who questioned infant baptism. The bulk of his objection, however, was due to his heresy that sin after baptism was almost

unforgivable. * Cyprian, a leading bishop of North Africa, convened a synod of sixty-six bishops at Carthage to discuss whether or not they felt that infant baptism should be delayed until the eighth day after birth instead of the usual second or third day. Their unanimous decision upheld the universally accepted practice which they had always followed.

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS * A very early Christian teacher, Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.), wrote the following: "He came to save all through Himself - all I say, who through Him are reborn in God-infants, and children, and youth, and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age, and at the same time becoming for them an example of piety, of righteousness, and of submission; a young man for youths, becoming an example for youths and sanctifying them for the Lord." Here we read that Jesus Christ came that all might be reborn in God. "How can an infant be reborn if he cannot believe?" a person may ask. I ask in return, "How can an infant be reborn if his Christian parents have refrained from baptizing him?" Is a child who has not reached the "age of accountability/reason" not reborn until he reaches the age of thirteen when he then needs to be reborn? * Origen's (185-254 A.D.) view of baptism is direct and transparent: "For what is sin? Could a child who has only just been born commit a sin? And yet he has sin for which it is commanded to offer a sacrifice, as Job 14:4ff and Psalm 51:5-7 show. For this reason the Church received from the Apostles the tradition to administer baptism to the children also. For the men to whom the secrets of divine mysteries had been entrusted knew that in everyone there were genuine sinful defilements, which had to be washed away with water and the Spirit." In his Homily on Luke he again states his beliefs on infant baptism: "Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. What sins? Whenever have they sinned? In fact, of course, never. And yet: 'No one is free from defilement.' (Job 14:4) But defilement is only put away by the mystery of baptism. That is the reason why infants too are baptized. " * Hippolytus' (170-236 A.D.) perception of infant baptism is clear and straightforward as well: "And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them." * There is not one Church Father who denies or even questions the validity of infant baptism. It was in no locality and at no time viewed as something that was created after New Testament times.

SOME FINAL COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The evidences I have so far presented I believe merit attention by themselves. I would like, however, to make

a number of random yet significant comments and observations about the area of infant baptism before I close this article. Many times the debate regarding infant baptism is a defensive one; those who propose that adult baptism is the only valid form challenge those who practice infant baptism to prove that it is an acceptable practice. What if those who exclusively favor adult baptism were interrogated? What answers would they give to questions which up until now have been virtually unaddressed? Questions such as these: * If infant baptism is a later invention, when did it begin and who began it? Where did it originate? * Why are there no protests against the validity of infant baptism from anyone in the early Church? * Where is anything found in Scripture that expressly forbids the baptism of infants or children? * How is it that God established a covenantal, corporate relationship with the tribes of Israel in the Old Testament, but you interpret the New Testament as abolishing the faith of an entire household with the father at its head in favor of a solely individualistic faith? * Where does Scripture prescribe any age for baptism? * Even if there were a special age when someone's faith reached "maturity," how could one discern that? Doesn't faith always mature? When is faith mature enough for baptism and when is it not? Who can judge? * Where in Scripture does it say that children are free from the effects of the Fall simply because they are not old enough to believe? (Even creation is under the curse of mankind's fall - Romans 8:19-21). * What about the many Biblical meanings and early Christian understandings of baptism other than the one defining it as a visible sign of inward repentance, meanings such as the sacrament of regeneration (Titus 3:5), a grafting into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), a passage from the reign of Satan into Christ's authority (Romans 6:17), the expression of the manifestation of God (Luke 3:21,22), an admission into God's covenant (Colossians 2:11), the Lord's act of adoption and our putting on of Christ (Galatians 3:26,27)? Why should these things be taken away from the small child of a Christian family? * If it was the norm to baptize children at a later age, why is there no evidence in Scripture or early Church history of instruction given to parents on how to help their adolescent children prepare for baptism? * If it is granted that baptism is for the remission of sins, why would the Church ever want to give baptism to infants if there were nothing in the infants which needed remission? Would not the grace of baptism, in this context, seem superfluous? * In essence, laying aside all the polemics and prejudices and academic intricacies, what Scriptural principle is being violated if a child is baptized and matures in his faith? There is a good reason why these questions are hard to answer for those who exclusively advocate adult baptism: infant baptism is not an innovation, it is the practice of the Early Church. Over and over again I am told that is incorrect to allow infants to be baptized because the Scriptural order is to first believe, and then to be baptized (Mark 16:16). The error in this thinking is not that it is incorrect to have an adult believe before he is baptized, but that one cannot apply a command intended for adults to infants. The Bible was not written to infants and is therefore not going to direct them to do anything. They are under the care of their parents who can hear, understand, and believe. Additionally, there is an important distinction to be made between baptizing an infant and an adult believer-one has the need to repent, the other does not. It is also important to recognize that the New Testament records the beginnings of the Christian people. This accounts for it reading like a missionary diary in a number of places. I am certain that were I to begin an apostolic work in a totally heathen country, and to write to the people there or to record my progress in preaching the Gospel to them, I would not mention infant baptism even once. Some may ask why Sts. John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nanziansus, Basil the Great, and Jerome were all

baptized as adults, even though they had at least one Christian parent. The earliest evidence that Christian parents refrained from having their child baptized immediately after birth is in the middle of the fourth century (Gregory was the first example of this in 360 A.D.). None of these men postponed their baptism because of faith, however. Surely Gregory and John Chrysostom at 30, Jerome at 20, and Basil at 27 (at which ages they were baptized) had reached the "age of reason" and individual faith long before then. They postponed their baptisms on the false premise that they could better assure themselves a place in heaven if they minimized the times they sinned after baptism. None of these men ever challenged the validity of infant baptism. Baptism in and of itself, of course, is not enough. It must be accompanied by genuine faith. No parents should be allowed to baptize their infant if they themselves have not made an expressed commitment to serve Jesus Christ and raise their child in accordance with God's Word. As adults, we are called to accept the challenge of our baptism and live dedicated lives for Christ. If we do any less, we have rejected Christ and the gift of salvation He has made available to us since our birth. Going full circle, I now end this article with the question with which I began it: "Should I be baptized again?" Given that our infant baptism is valid, the Scriptural answer to that question is clear" "There is ... one Lord, one faith, ONE baptism." (Ephesians 4:4,5) If you have been baptized once, there is no need to be baptized again. Let us then determine to bear witness to the truth of our baptism by living for Him who died and rose for us.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a26.htm Infant Baptism Infant Baptism by Mark J. Bonocore Is it correct and Apostolic to Baptize infants and children before the age of reason? Well, first of all, it must be admitted that there is no specific reference to infant Baptism in the Scriptures. However, that's really beside the point, since there is nothing that speaks against infant Baptism either; and, as you and I were discussing at the Oratory, there is also no Scriptural account of Baptizing retarded or mentally-imbalanced people, yet the Church has always done so. Case in point, in Matthew 17:14-18, we are told how Jesus cast out a demon from a young boy because of an appeal by the boy's father: "When they came to the crowd, a man approached, knelt down before Him, and said, 'Lord, have pity on my son for he is a lunatic and suffers severly...." And Jesus heals the boy because of the father's faith. Now, obviously, it was not possible for this boy to have faith in Jesus on his own. He was psychologically and spiritually disturbed (whether naturally or supernaturally); yet Jesus used the father's faith to make him whole again. So, if such a thing is possible with demonic possession, why should Baptism be any different?

Many retarded and/or insane people do not have the ability to reason so as to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior" (as the Evangelicals say ;-) Yet, didn't Jesus come to save them as well? Don't they need to be Baptized into Christ? (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27) Well, if so, then why should we assume that the ability to reason is necessary for Baptism? Why can't babies be Baptized before they reach the age of reason? Well, an Evangelical might tell you that it's because the ability to reason is necessary before one can sin. And, indeed, that is very true. We Catholics have an old expression: "If there's no knowledge, then there's no responsibility. If there's no responsibility, then there's no sin." So, our Evangelical brothers and sisters try to apply this to Baptism. In the case of an infant or a retarded person, they will say that these lack the ability to reason, and therefore they are free of guilt. And, again, that is very true. However, think about what it implies. :-) What this implies is that infants and retarded people do not need a Savior! Which, to us Catholics, is completely ridiculous. :-) We know from Scripture itself that Christ came to save everybody, including infants and retarded people. He is their Savior just as much as He is the Savior of rational, healthy adults. So, the real issue with those who deny infant Baptism is that they deny the reality of what we call original sin, something which non-Catholics usually confuse with "original guilt" (which Catholics DO NOT believe in). For example, we do not hold that a child is born guilty of sin. That is not the Catholic position at all. Rather, we believe that the child is personally innocent; however, because of the sin of Adam and Eve, the child is born with a "macula" (in Latin, a "dark spot") -- a lack of the light of God's grace in the soul (something the Virgin Mary did not lack, and so she is the Im-maculate Conception). This lack of God's light (grace) is why we have an inclination toward sin; and all people (whether they have the ability to reason or not) suffer from it. Yet, in Baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit, and become adopted sons and daughters of God. The light of God's grace dwells in our souls, and so we have the ability to overcome our sinful inclinations and live as the children of God we are called to be. And this is why we believe that Baptism is a Sacrament. It is not something which we do to ourselves, but it's something that is done to us by God through the ministry of His Church. We merely accept it; or someone else accepts it for us. And, it's here that we run into the main problem of those who deny infant Baptism: Is Baptism merely a "washing away of sin" ? Or is it something more? Is it the entering into a Covenant of Love with the Father? We Catholics believe that it is. We believe that Baptism is the entering into a Covenant bond -- an adoption into the very Sonship which Christ Himself enjoys with the Father. And, in this, it mirrors the Old Jewish Covenant, which was brought about by circumcision. Indeed, St. Paul himself calls Baptism our circumcision in Colossians 2:11-12: "In Him, you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with Him in Baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the power of God, Who raised Him from the dead." (Colossians 2:11-12) Now, under the Old Jewish Law, circumcision was performed on a male child 8 days after birth. It was also something that was done to the child. The child did not choose to be initiated into the Chosen People of Israel. Yet this was what God commanded Abraham to do, so that his children (and the children of his tribe) might become inheritors of the Covenant God made with Abraham. So, if this was possible for infants under

the Old Jewish Covenant, how much more is it possible for the New Covenant we have in Christ Jesus, Who says: "Let the children be, do not keep them back from me; the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these." (Matthew 19:14) Also, Luke 18:15 adds to this, saying how "They brought little children to Him." Indeed, the Greek word for "children" here ("brepha") actually means "babies" -- little children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own. And so, while there is no specific mention of infants being Baptized, we do see numerous allusions to it in Scripture. For example, after Peter gives his public address on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:37-39 tells us, "Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, 'What are we to do, my brothers?' Peter said to them, 'Repent and be Baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to YOUR CHILDREN and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:37-39) Also, Scripture gives us numerous accounts of entire households being Baptized. Here again, the Greek word for "household" assumes that children and babies are included: Acts 16:14-15 -- "One of them, a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth, from the city of Thyatira, a worshiper of God, listened, and the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. After she AND HER HOUSEHOLD had been baptized, she offered us an invitation ...." Acts 16:30-33 --"Then he (the jailer) brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' And they (Paul & Silas) said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus and you AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD will be saved.' So they spoke the Word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. He took them in at that hour of the night (midnight, v. 25) and bathed their wounds; then he and ALL HIS FAMILY were baptized at once." Acts 18:8 --"Crispus, the synagogue official, came to believe in the Lord along with his ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD, and many of the Corinthians who heard believed and were baptized." See also Acts 10:24-27 & 10:44-48 where Peter Baptizes the entire family of Cornelius. So, that's what we have from the Scriptures. Yet, turning to Sacred Tradition, the writings of the early Church Fathers show quite clearly that the Apostles practiced infant Baptism. And this can be traced back to the Apostles quite easily. It goes like this: In the year 215 AD, the Church Father St. Hippolytus of Rome writes: "And they shall Baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." (Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 c. AD 215). Now, St. Hippolytus was the disciple of St. Irenaeus of Lyon; and, in AD 180, St. Irenaeus writes: "For He came to save all through Himself --all, I say, who through Him are born again to God [i.e.,

Baptized] -- infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies 2:22:4 -- c. AD 180) St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in AD 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution: "Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156) Now, it is well documented that "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" was written the year after the saint's execution; and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It is also well documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was Baptized as an infant. And, in another place, we are told that Polycarp was Baptized by none other than the Apostle John! :-) Therefore, at least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the Apostles Baptized infants. Furthermore, here are some more Church Fathers on infant Baptism. Thought I'd throw them in. ;-) St. Justin Martyr (150 AD): "And both men and women who have been Christ's disciples since infancy, remain pure, and at the age of sixty or seventy years ..." (Justin Martyr, First Apology,15:6 -- AD 110-165) Origen (244 AD): "Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And, indeed, if there were nothing in infants that required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would be superfluous." (Origen, Homily on Leviticus 8:3 -- AD 244) St. Cyprian (250 AD) "But in respect to the case of infants, which you say ought not to be Baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be Baptized and sanctified within the eighth day ....And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from Baptism ...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons." (Cyprian, Epistle 58, To Fides [54] -- AD 251) St. Gregory Nazianzus (381 AD) "Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children and conscious neither of the loss nor of grace? Are we to Baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated." (Gregory Nazianzus, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 -- AD 381) St. John Chrysostom (388 AD) "We do Baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any [personal] sins." (John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos -- AD 388)

St. Ambrose (387 AD) "Unless a man be born again through water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. No one is expected: not the infant; not the one prevented by necessity." (Ambrose of Milan, Abraham 2,11:79 -- AD 387) St. Augustine (415 AD) "Likewise, whoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that Sacrament (Baptism) are alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to loose no time and run in haste to administer Baptism to infant children, because it is believed as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ." (Augustine, Epistle 167 -- AD 415) Council of Carthage (418 AD) "Canon 2: Likewise it has been decided that whoever says that infants fresh from their mother's wombs should not be Baptized ...let him be anathema." (Council of Carthage, AD 418) Mark J. Bonocore MJBono@aol.com

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/lutheranism/24080 Luther's Sermon on Infant Baptism

27. Besides these there are others, like the brethren called Waldensians. They teach that every one must believe for himself, and receive baptism or the Lord's supper with his own faith; otherwise neither baptism nor the Lord's supper is of any benefit to him. So far they speak and teach correctly. But it is a mockery of holy baptism, when they go on and baptize little children, although they teach that they have no faith of their own. They thus sin against the second commandment, in that they consciously and deliberately take the name and Word of God in vain. Nor does the excuse help them which they plead, that children are baptized upon their future faith, when they come to the age of reason. For the faith must be present before or at least in the baptism; otherwise the child will not be delivered from the devil and sins. Luther's Sermon on Infant Baptism28. Therefore if their opinion were correct, all that is done with the child in baptism is necessarily falsehood and mockery. For the baptizer asks whether the child believes, and the answer for the child is: "Yes." And he asks whether it desires to be baptized, and the answer for the child is again: "Yes." Now nobody is baptized for the child, but it is baptized itself. Therefore it must also believe itself, or the sponsors must speak a falsehood, when for it they say: "I believe." Furthermore, the baptizer declares that it is born anew, has forgiveness of sins, is freed from the devil, and as a sign of this he puts on it a white garment, and deals with it in every way as with a new, holy child of God: all of which would necessarily be untrue, if the child had not its own faith. Indeed, it would be better never to baptize a child, than to trifle and juggle with God's Word and sacrament, as if he were an idol or a fool.

29. Nor is it of any use that they make a threefold distinction in the kingdom of God: first, it is the Christian church; secondly, eternal life; thirdly, the Gospel; and then say children are baptized for the kingdom of heaven in the third and first sense. That is, they are baptized, not to be saved thereby and to receive forgiveness of sins; but they are received into the church and brought to the Gospel. All this amounts to nothing and is only an invention of their imagination. For it is not entering the kingdom of heaven, if I get among Christians and hear the Gospel. The heathen can also do that without baptism. This is not entering the kingdom of heaven, however, you may talk of the first, second, and third sense of the kingdom of heaven. But being in the kingdom of heaven means to be a living member of the church, and not only to hear, but also to believe the Gospel. Otherwise a man would be in the kingdom of heaven, just as if I threw a stick or stone among Christians, or as the devil is among them. All this is worth nothing. 30. It also follows from this, that the Christian church has two kinds of baptism. and that children have not the same baptism as adults. Nevertheless St. Paul says there is only "one baptism, one Lord, one faith." (Ephesians. 4:5): For if the baptism of children does not effect and bestow, what the baptism of adults effects and bestows, it is not the same baptism: it is indeed no baptism at all, but a sport and mockery of baptism, inasmuch as there is no baptism but that which saves. If one knows or believes that it does not save, he ought not to administer it. But if it is administered, it is not Christian baptism; for one does not believe, that it effects what baptism is to effect. Therefore it is another and foreign baptism. For this reason it were almost necessary, that the Waldensian brethren should have themselves baptized again, as they baptize our people again; because they not only receive baptism without faith, but even contrary to faith, and in mockery and dishonor of God administer another, foreign, unchristian baptism. 31. If now we cannot give a better answer to this question and prove that the little children themselves believe and have their own faith, my sincere counsel and judgment is, that we abstain altogether and the sooner the better, and never baptize a child, so that we may not mock and blaspheme the adorable majesty of God by such trifling and juggling with nothing in it. Therefore we here conclude and declare that in baptism the children themselves believe and have their own faith, which God effects in them through the sponsors, when in the faith of the Christian church they intercede for them and bring them to baptism. And this is what we call the power of alien faith: not that anybody can be saved by it, but that through it as an intercession and aid he can obtain from God himself his own faith, by which he is saved. It may be compared to my natural life and death. If I am to live, I myself must be born, and nobody can be born for me to enable me to live; but mother and midwife can by their life aid me in birth and enable me to live. In the same way I myself must suffer death, if I am to die; but one can help to bring about my death, if he frightens me, or falls upon me, or chokes, crushes or suffocates me. In like manner, nobody can go to hell for me; but he can seduce me by false doctrine and life, so that I go thither by my own error, into which his error has led me. So nobody can go to heaven for me: but he can assist me, can preach, teach, govern, pray and obtain faith from God, through which I can go to heaven. This centurion was not healed of the palsy of his servant; but yet he brought it about that his servant was restored to health. 32. So here we also say, that children are not baptized in the faith of the sponsors or of the church; but the faith of sponsors and of the church prays and gains faith for them, in which they are baptized and believe for themselves. For this we have strong and firm Scripture proof, Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-16. When some brought little children to the Lord Jesus that he should touch them, and the disciples forbade them, he rebuked the disciples, and embraced the children, and laid his hands upon them and blessed them, and said: "To such belongeth the kingdom of God" etc. These passages nobody will take from us, nor refute with good proof. For here is written: Christ will permit no one to forbid that little children should be brought to him; nay, he bids them to be brought to him, and blesses them and gives to them the kingdom of heaven. Let us give due heed to this Scripture. 33. This is undoubtedly written of natural children. The interpretation of Christ's words, as if he had meant

only spiritual children, who are small in humility, will not stand. For they were small children as to their bodies, which Luke calls infants. His blessing is placed upon these, and of these he says that the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Will we say they were without faith of their own? Then the passages quoted above are untrue: "He that disbelieveth shall be condemned." Then Christ also speaks falsely or feigns, when he says the kingdom of heaven is theirs, and is not really speaking of the true kingdom of heaven. Interpret these words of Christ as you please, we have it that children are to be brought to Christ and not to be forbidden to be brought: and when they are brought to Christ, he here compels us to believe that he blesses them and gives to them the kingdom of heaven, as he does with these children. And it is in no way proper for us to act and believe otherwise as long as the words stand: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not." Not less is it proper for us to believe that when they are brought to him he embraces them, blesses them, and bestows upon them heaven, as long as the text stands that he blessed the children which were brought to him and gave heaven to them. Who can ignore this text? Who will be so bold as not to suffer little children to come to baptism, or not to believe that Christ blesses them when they come? 34. He is just as present in baptism now as he was then: this we Christians know for certain. Therefore we dare not forbid baptism to children. Nor dare we doubt that he blesses all who come thither, as he did those children. So then there is nothing left here but the piety and faith of those who brought the little children to him. By bringing them, they effect and aid that the little children are blessed and obtain the kingdom of heaven; which cannot be the case unless they themselves have their own faith, as has been said. So we also say here, that children are brought to baptism by the faith and work of others; but when they get there and the pastor or baptizer deals with them in Christ's stead, he blesses them and grants to them the faith and the kingdom of heaven: for the word and deed of the pastor are the word and work of Christ himself. 35. With this agrees also what St. John says in his first Epistle, 2:13: "I write unto you, fathers; I write unto you, young men; I have written unto you, little children." He is not satisfied to write to the young men; he also writes to the children, and writes that they may know the Father. From this it follows that the apostles baptized children also, and held that they believe and know the Father, just as if they had attained to reason and could read. Although somebody might here interpret the word "children" as adults, as Christ designates his disciples sometimes: yet it is certain that here they are meant who are younger than the young men; so that it is evident he is speaking of young people who are under fifteen or eighteen years of age, and excludes nobody down to the first year: for these all are called children. 36. But let us examine their reason why they do not think children believe. They say, because they have not attained to reason they cannot hear God's Word; but where God's Word is not heard there can be no faith. Romans 10:17: "Belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Tell me is this Christian to judge of God's works by our thinking, and say, Children have not attained to reason, therefore they cannot believe? How if through this very reason you have already departed from faith, and the children come to faith through their unreason? Dear friend, what good does reason do for faith and the Word of God? Is it not reason which resists in the highest degree faith and the Word of God, so that nobody can come to faith by means of reason? Reason will not endure God's Word unless it is first blinded and disgraced. Man must first die to reason and become, as it were, a fool, and even as unreasonable and unintelligent as a little child, if he is to become a believer and receive the grace of God; as Christ says in Matthew 18:3: "Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." How often does Christ hold before us that we must become children and fools, and condemn reason? 37. Tell me also, what kind of reason had the little children whom Christ embraced and blessed, and upon whom he bestowed the kingdom of heaven? Were they not still without reason? Why does he command to bring them to him and then bless them? Where did they get the faith which makes them children of the kingdom of heaven? Nay, just because they are without reason and foolish, they are better prepared to believe than adults and those possessed of reason, because reason is always in the way and with its large head is not

willing to push through the narrow door. One must not look upon reason or its works when faith and God's work are under consideration. Here God alone works and reason is dead, blind and, compared to this work, an unreasonable block, in order that the Scripture may stand, which says: "God is wonderful in his saints;" and: "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways," Isaiah 55:9. 38. But since they stick so fast in reason, we must assail them with their own wisdom. Tell me, why do you baptize a man when he has come to the age of reason? You answer: He hears God's Word and believes. I ask: "How do you know that?" You answer: "He professes it with his mouth." "What shall I say? How, if he lies and deceives? You cannot see his heart." "Very well, then you baptize for no other reason than for what the man shows himself to be externally, and you are uncertain of his faith, and must believe that if he has not more within in his heart than you perceive without, neither his hearing, nor his profession, nor his faith will help him; for it may all be a delusion and no true faith." "Who then are you, that you say external hearing and profession are necessary to baptism; where these are wanting one must not baptize? You yourself must confess that such hearing and profession are uncertain, and not enough for one to receive baptism. Now upon what do you baptize? How will you justify your actions when you thus bungle baptism and bring it into doubt? Is it not the fact that you must come and say that it is not becoming for you to know or do more than that he whom you are to baptize be brought to you and ask baptism from you; and you must believe or commit the matter to God, whether he inwardly truly believes or not? In this way you are excused and baptize aright. Why then will you not do the same for the children, whom Christ commands to be brought to him and promises to bless? But you wish first to have the outward hearing and profession, which you yourself acknowledge is uncertain and not sufficient for baptism on the part of the one to be baptized. And you let go the sure word of Christ in which he bids the little children to be brought unto him, on account of your uncertain external hearing." 39. Moreover tell me, where is the reason of a Christian while he is asleep, since his faith and the grace of God never leave him? If faith can thus continue without the aid of reason, so that the latter is not conscious of it, why should it not also begin in children before reason knows anything about it? In the same way I would like to say of every hour in which a Christian lives and is busy and occupied, that he is not conscious of his faith and reason, and yet his faith does not on that account cease. God's works are mysterious and wonderful, where and when he wills: and again manifest enough, where and when he wills. Judgment upon them is too high and too deep for us. 40. Since it is commanded here, not to forbid little children to come unto him in order to receive his blessing, and it is not demanded of us to know the exact state of faith within, and the external hearing and profession are not sufficient for the one baptized, we are to he content that it is enough for us, the baptizers, to hear the profession of the one to be baptized, who comes to us of himself. And this for the reason that we may not administer the sacrament against our conscience, as giving it to those in whom no fruit is to be hoped for. But if they assure our conscience of their desire and profession, so that we can administer it as a sacrament that imparts grace, we arc excused. If his faith is not true, let that rest with God; we have not given the sacrament as a useless thing, but with the consciousness that it is beneficial. 41. All this I say in order that one may not baptize recklessly, as they do who even administer it with the deliberate knowledge that it will be of no effect or benefit to the person receiving it. For therein the baptizers sin, because they knowingly use God's sacrament and Word in vain, or at least have the consciousness that it is neither intended nor able to effect anything; which is an altogether unworthy use of the sacrament and a temptation and blasphemy of God. For that is not administering the sacrament, but making a mockery of it. But if the person baptized denies and does not believe, you have done right anyhow, and have administered the true sacrament with the good consciousness that it ought to be beneficial. 42. However, those who do not come of themselves, but are brought, as Christ bids us to bring little children,

the faith of these commit to him who bids them to be brought, and baptize them by his command, and say: "Lord, thou dost bring them and command to baptize them." Thou wilt answer for them. On this I rely. I dare not drive them away nor forbid them. If they have not heard the Word, by which faith comes, as adults hear it, they nevertheless hear it like little children. Adults take it up with their ears and reason, often without faith; but they hear it with their ears, without reason and with faith. And faith is nearer in proportion as reason is less, and he is stronger who brings them than the will of adults who come of themselves. 43. These inventive spirits stumble mostly because in adults there is reason, which acts as if it believed the Word it hears. This then they call faith. Again they see that in children there is as yet no reason; for they act as if they did not believe. But they do not observe that faith in God's Word is quite a different and deeper thing than what reason does with the Word of God. For it is the work of God alone above all reason, to which the child is just as near as the adult, yes, much nearer, and from which the adult is just as far as the child, yea, much farther. 44. But this that is contrived by reason is a human work. I think, if any baptism is certain, the baptism of children is most certain, because of the Word of Christ, where he commands to bring them, whereas the adults come of themselves. In adults there may be deception because of the reason that is manifest; but in children there can be no deception, because of their hidden reason in whom Christ works his blessing even as he has bidden them to be brought to himself. It is a glorious word and not to be treated lightly that he commands us to bring the children to him and rebukes those who forbid it. 45. But hereby we do not mean to weaken or destroy the office of preaching. For God indeed does not cause his Word to be preached for the sake of the rational hearing since no fruit results from that; but for the sake of the spiritual hearing which as I have said children also have as well and even better than adults; for they also hear the Word. For what else is baptism but the Gospel to which they are brought? However they hear it only once but they hear it more effectively because Christ, who has commanded to bring them receives them. For adults have the advantage that they frequently hear and can think of it again. Yet even in the case of adults it is a fact that the spiritual hearing is not effected by many sermons. But it may occur once during one sermon and then he has enough for ever. What he hears afterwards he hears either to improve the first hearing or to destroy it again. 46. In short, the baptism and consolation of children lie in the word: "Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not; for to such belongeth the kingdom of God." He has spoken this and he does not lie. Therefore it must be right and Christian to bring little children to him. This can only be done in baptism. So also it must be certain that he blesses them and bestows the kingdom of heaven upon all who come to him according to the words: "To such belongeth the kingdom of God." Let this be enough for this time. 47. Finally it would be in order here to treat of the spiritual meaning of leprosy and the palsy. But of leprosy much has been said in the Postil of the ten lepers. There it need not be treated at length here.

Some common traditions of men vs. the Word of God

The Word of God says:

He who believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16)

Denominations teach: He who believes and is saved, should be baptized

The Word of God says: Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38)

Denominations teach: Repent and be baptized because your sins have already been forgiven

The Word of God says: Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

Denominations teach: Baptism is not essential for salvation. This birth of water is natural childbirth.

The Word of God says: 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. (Romans 6:4)

Denominations teach: We were buried therefore with him by belief 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.

The Word of God says: There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:4-5)

Denominations teach: There are many baptisms and many bodies, and many faiths.

The Word of God says: who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you - not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, it saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.(1Peter 3:21) Note: Look at the above verse carefully. It teaches the water of Noahs flood is a symbol of baptism--and baptism saves us. The it in the phrase it saves you is referring to baptismSo this verse actually states two times that baptism saves us!

Denominations teach: Baptism does not save you--baptism is merely a symbol.

The Word of God says: and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:12)

Denominations teach: Baptism is a work of Man.

The Word of God says: For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Galatians 3:26-27)

Denominations teach: Baptism does not put us into Christ--belief alone does.

The Word of God says: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20)

Denominations teach: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, telling them to pray for me to come into their life, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.

The Word of God says: Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:36-39)

Denominations teach: Baptism is required, but not in water. Baptism is in spirit. And if water is used, sprinkling or pouring is ok. And candidate for baptism need not believe (such as with infants).

The Word of God says: And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)

Denominations teach: Paul had been praying and fasting for three days at this point, and called Jesus Lord, so he was already saved. Baptism had nothing to do with having his sins washed away.

The Word of God says:

You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

Denominations teach: We are justified by faith alone.

COMMUNION OF SAINTS

MARY

You might also like