There has been a lot of confusion and misinterpretation of the Catholic view of Justification. In fact, there has been a Battle Royale at a Protestant blog about this recently. [I’m not going to link this blog just now for a variety of reasons. I may do that later.] I am VERY reluctant to bring that battle here. This is, in essence, a blog of Catholic apologetics, but it is not a battleground.
However, given that I just called this a blog of Catholic apologetics, even if it has a very narrow aim, I think this subject will be of interest to both prospective converts and practicing Catholics.
[One editorial note: From here on I will be defining the words “Protestant" and “Protestantism" in very broad terms. I know many Protestant denominations do not agree with the more Fundamentalist definitions used here, but the word “Fundamentalist" doesn’t seem adequate either.]
This is going to be a tremendous oversimplification, but here’s the gist of it: The Protestant idea of justification revolves around Sola Fide – Latin for “by faith alone". They believe that by their faith - and their faith alone - they are granted access to heaven. We Catholics are condemned (as often as not, it comes in language such as this...or far stronger) because we believe that good works add to your chances of getting into heaven. It is one of the most divisive issues that stand between Catholics and Protestants, one in which misunderstandings exist on both sides.
So the question arises, how do we get into heaven?
Let’s do a little thought experiment to get things started. Let’s say that my 13 year old daughter (“Dad, I’m almost 14!" “Not for three months yet, what’s your hurry? And no, you can’t have a cell phone.") gets roped into volunteering at a soup kitchen with some members of a parish youth group. They tell her they are going to do good works to help them get into heaven. She had other plans that day, but reluctantly agrees. She goes, she feeds the hungry, she talks to people to make them feel better about things, life, whatever. She then comes home, listens to some music, says her prayers, and goes to bed. We will assume that she is fine in all other areas: she believes that Christ is the savior and that he died for our sins, she’s been baptized, she participates in the sacraments, etc.
Based on the Catholic Doctrine of Justification and the idea of good works, do these actions at the soup kitchen help her get into heaven?
They do not.
Catholicism teaches that all human beings reach heaven because of something called Sanctifying Grace. There’s a reason that the Catechism of the Catholic Church combines Grace and Justification into a single section. I’ll let Frank Sheed define it for us:
“When we come to die there is only one question that matters -- Have we sanctifying grace in our souls? If we have, then to heaven we shall go. There may be certain matters to be cleared, or cleansed, on the way, but to heaven we shall go, for we have the power to live there. If we have not, then to heaven we cannot go; not because we lack the price of admission, but because quite simply our soul lacks the powers that living in heaven calls for.“It is not a question of getting past the gate, but of living once we are there; there would be no advantage in finding a kindly gate keeper, willing to let us in anyhow. The powers of intellect and will that go with our natural life are not sufficient; heaven calls for powers of knowing and loving higher than our nature of itself has. We need supernatural life, and we must get it here upon the earth. To die lacking it means eternal failure." - Theology for Beginners
[By the way, this also wrecks one Protestant misconception. As one person said on the other blog, “Catholics believe that if Jesus bars the door to heaven, then Mary will let them in the back window." Not even close.]
The Council of Trent said very specifically that Sanctifying Grace is not just a cause of justification; it is the only formal cause. Sanctifying Grace is the critical thing, the absolutely necessary thing, and the thing around which our entry into Heaven hinges.
Justification in Protestantism is something of a technical act in which God declares that the sinner merits heaven. In this system, if someone accepts Christ as their personal savior then to heaven they shall go, regardless of how they live their lives on earth (reminder: this is a necessary oversimplification, and I am using the words “Protestant" and “Protestantism" broadly). The soul is reborn simply by virtue of the fact that they accept Christ. What happens between that acceptance and death is of lesser importance than it is to a Catholic.
Catholicism sees this in a very different way. Justification eradicates sin entirely and sanctifies the soul. It is truly a rebirth of our existing soul; we are born again in the Spirit. We are redeemed, not just saved. We are sanctified and given a supernatural life capable of existing in heaven. (John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Ephesians 4:23-24, I Corinthians 6:11) The forgiveness of sin in the Bible is a real, tangible, and objective thing. The language is definite and strong: “taketh away" (John 1:29), “blot out" (Psalm 50:11 … the whole of Psalm 50, really), “hath he removed our iniquities from us" (Psalm 102:12), “blot out" (Is 43:25). Without this, we are unable to enter the kingdom of God (John 3:3).
The Council of Trent also says that Faith is the "the beginning, foundation and root of all justification". This cannot be emphasized enough. Without faith, nothing else matters, for it is from faith that the other elements of justification come. The next piece of the justification puzzle, according to Trent, is genuine sorrow for sins committed, and the resolution to go forth and sin no more. Justification is sealed by baptism in water, and the soul is filled with Sanctifying Grace. Through this sacrament, the catechumen is freed from both original and personal sin, and becomes a child of God. This process is reinforced with the sacrament of Confession, where those who have lost their baptismal innocence through sin are reinfused with Sanctifying Grace. The last piece is that of works and having a living faith. The idea of works affecting justification is a huge chasm between Protestants and Catholics. We are told several times in the Bible that faith without works is dead (Galatians 5:6, James 2:13-19). But how are we to understand this relative to quotes saying that we are justified by faith alone?
Charity is one of the theological virtues (along with Faith and Hope). Charity is the love of God and, by extension, all of God’s creation. Perfect charity is the love of every trace or reflection of God that we see here on this earth. Through the two great commandments, the greatest charity is that directed at our fellow man, especially those most in need.
Let’s go back to our thought experiment for a moment. What’s the key to this? Why do these good deeds merit nothing in the greater scheme of things? It’s really quite simple. The key phrase is this: “They tell her they are going to do good works to help them get into heaven." Subsequent to that, we have the idea that she is “roped into‿ going, or has “other things to do", the general reluctance of the tone. The point is that these actions are done without charity. At no point is the love of God, or the love of our fellow man, ever mentioned. (It might well be there, or it might be implied, but for the sake of our thought experiment I intentionally left it out.) They are done with the idea of getting into heaven, not with the idea of doing them for the love of God and God’s creation. The thought experiment is one in which the good works are done without charity, and in that, the faith behind them is dead. Dead faith, devoid of charity, does not gain Sanctifying Grace, does not justify.
I’ve read where Luther seems to have been unaware of the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas (I can’t find the citation just now, but I’ve seen it a couple of times). Aquinas predates Luther by about two and a half centuries, and the Reformation might have been very different if Luther had read Aquinas. Aquinas is, after all, one of the Doctors of the Church, and one of the heaviest of heavy hitters. In the Summa, we read:
“... no matter how good a work may be, if it be done without charity, it does not give man a claim to receive anything from God. On the other hand, an evil deed deserves an equivalent punishment according to the measure of its malice, because no evil has been done to us on the part of God, like the good which He has done. Therefore, although an evil deed deserves condign punishment, nevertheless a good deed without charity does not merit condign reward."
Everything the Church does touches either directly or indirectly on Sanctifying Grace. The idea of works affecting justification is geared toward the element of God in the work, not the work itself. Good works are necessary to give faith a living quality, a quality of charity, a quality of love for God and His creation.
To a Catholic, salvation is an on-going thing, something that takes a lifetime and can be lost through sin. We are saved by faith, but we are not saved by faith alone. We will reap what our mortal acts have earned, for good or ill (2 Corinthians 5:10), we will be rewarded what our acts deserve (Romans 2:6). “By their fruits you shall know them" (Matthew 7:16), “…and then will he render to every man according to his works" (Matthew 16:27), “Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me" (Matthew 25:40), “And if you invoke as Father him who, without respect of persons, judgeth according to every one's work" (1 Peter 1:17), “…to render to every man according to his works" (Revelation 22:12), we are not redeemed solely by faith: “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 7:21)
We Catholics are forced to live our lives to the theological hilt in the totality of Christian living. No, forced is not the proper word. We choose, we desire, we hope to live our lives in this totality (no, we aren’t always successful - at times, we aren’t even very good at it). Our salvation depends on faith, repentance, and charity. We work at our salvation for our entire lives, every single day, in fear and trembling. Ya wanna know something: it’s amazingly rewarding.
The final word goes to Benedict XVI:
"The question that really concerns us, the question that really oppresses us, is why it is necessary for us in particular to practice the Christian Faith in its totality: why, when there are so many other ways that lead to heaven and salvation, should it be required of us to bear day after day the whole burden of ecclesial dogmas and of the ecclesial ethos. And so we come again to the question: What exactly is Christian reality? What is the specific element in Christianity that not merely justifies it, but makes it compulsorily necessary for us? When we raise the question about the foundations and meaning of our Christian existence, there slips in a certain false hankering for the apparently more comfortable life of other people who are also going to heaven. We are too much like the laborers in the first hour in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). Once they discovered that they could have earned their day’s pay of one denarius in a much easier way, they could not understand why they had had to labor the whole day. But what a strange attitude it is to find the duties of our Christian life unrewarding just because the denarius of salvation can be gained without them! It would seem that we - like the workers of the first hour - want to be paid not only with our own salvation, but more particularly with others’ lack of salvation. That is at once very human and profoundly un-Christian." Co-Workers of the Field.
We Catholics are indeed the workers of the first hour. But a good Catholic, one who understands their path to Heaven, will not complain about the long hours or hard labor. They’ll understand that life is about keeping Sanctifying Grace in their souls, that their salvation is an on-going project, and that it can be lost if left unattended. Salvation is not a cafeteria, where one can take some things, and leave others off. We’re working in God’s field. Personally, I would never trade my penance and good works for the ease of working in His fields for only an hour under the banner of Sola Fide.
Wow, and quoting Frank Sheed too. Good work.
:-) I always like to get Mr. Sheed in wherever possible.
Do her good works help her get into heaven? Let me put it a different way... Had she not done the good works, it would not have prevented her from getting into heaven. If that were the case, hermit monastics would go straight to hell.
Her soup kitchen time would lessen her time in purgatory (IOW, go against the required temporal punishment) at least that how I was led to believe it works. :)
But if the intent of doing the good works was to purchase something for oneself all along, then it wouldn't lessen her time in purgatory at all.
It's about the charity in one's heart, not the notches in one's belt. That's how I was taught.
Indulgances don't operate on a currency system, even if the currency in question is good works instead of cash.
Buying and selling indulgances is one of the things got everyone into this mess to begin with, anyway. Probably not a good subject to bring up if you're trying to convince those of another doctrine that Catholics don't do things to earn themselves God's favor/salvation/a ticket to heaven.
But if the intent of doing the good works was to purchase something for oneself all along, then it wouldn't lessen her time in purgatory at all.
Right!
Buying and selling indulgances is one of the things got everyone into this mess to begin with, anyway. Probably not a good subject to bring up if you're trying to convince those of another doctrine that Catholics don't do things to earn themselves God's favor/salvation/a ticket to heaven.
But there's a big difference between "earninig one's way into heaven" and "paying for the temporal punishment beforehand"
This time it might work!
When I was reading St. Cyprian of Carthage's treatise on the Lord's Prayer, and he was explaining the prayer phrase by phrase, I came across this passage:
This really helped me to understand the Catholic position on justification. Thank you.
I was quite disappointed in your very skewed portrayal of Protestants (although I don't fancy the name personally. I call myself a follower of Christ). You gave the impression that non-catholic believers are lazy bums who say "I believe" and then sit on the couch. We too are out in the community laboring hard for the glory of our Lord. The difference, I believe, between Catholics and non-catholics is in attitude. I do agree that this is not the place to debate.
Thanks for stopping by PhD4Jesus (if that really is your name!). Critique noted, but I did specifically state that this was over-simplified.
Maureen,
That's a very good quote and I'm not familiar with it. What book is it from?
Without faith, nothing else matters, for it is from faith that the other elements of justification come. The next piece of the justification puzzle, according to Trent, is genuine sorrow for sins committed, and the resolution to go forth and sin no more. Justification is sealed by baptism in water, and the soul is filled with Sanctifying Grace. Through this sacrament, the catechumen is freed from both original and personal sin
I found this portion confusing, Mark. It sounds as if you are describing justification sequentially. My understanding from what you are saying is that faith comes first and "kicks off" justification, and then baptism seals it and also removes original and personal sin.
I am confused because you baptize babies who obviously could not have had faith before being baptized and who unlikely have "personal sin". That is why Protestants in general believe in baptism after a profession of faith. It is an outward sign of our belief.
I agree with phd4jesus, your viewpoint of Protestantism is very oversimplified (and I know that you admit that). What we have after faith alone is "genuine faith" which makes us justified before God and results in the presence of the Holy Spirit in us (and a guaranteed salvation). We then go on to do "works" out of love (and I would disagree with your use of Gal 5:6 - I would emphasize the "expressing" part) and we are transformed by the Holy Spirit and begin to show not-so-workish traits like love, patience, kindness, etc. Our view of James is the indication of genuine faith, that genuine faith with move onto works not that works are a requirement for salvation.
I know you do not want to debate, but I did want to clarify the Protestant view. I think the confusion about what we believe is just as great as the reverse so hopefully you will allow me to post here.
Carrie,
Welcome, and no problem with the comment.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that we have a sacrament called Confirmation. Confirmation does indeed stand as an adult profession of faith in much the same way as you seem to look at Baptism of an adult. Baptism for an infant is an invitation by the parents to the Holy Spirit to infuse their child with Sanctifying Grace. But when this is done, the parents swear before God Almighty that they will instruct the child in the faith. The parents are also required to make a profession of faith at the Baptism of an infant. God parents are required to ensure that the education in faith proceeds even if the parents should die before the child reaches the age of assent. As the instruction goes forward, it leads toward Confirmation and the assent by the young adult.
Does that make sense? Unfortunately, my job is highly involved with transportation issues, and the announcements this morning are keeping me VERY busy. I can’t really elaborate just now, but hopefully this will make at least a little sense of it.
It seems like there are two snares in the justification issue: one being legalisim (i.e, works) and the other being grace only.
There are, incidently, some protestants (the more "fundamental" ones) that take a much more legalistic view than Catholics: that baptisim is a one-time-get-out-of-hell free card, after which one must repent and ask forgiveness for every sin--and without a purgatory, any and every sin is equally damning. A hot debate there is if rebaptisim is valid--I know some members of that sort of sect who've been rebaptised three or four times to "catch up" on forgiveness. That is also why some fundamentalists try to use the New Testament as a legal contract...which degenerates into loop holes and completly misses God's love.
The Calvinistic view is that of grace alone...which can lead to "cheap grace." The fallen prodigal son returned as a restored son to his father due solely to the grace of his father. But imagine the prodigal son returning to his father--with the full intent of taking advantage of his father's mercy. How many times would his father have welcomed the son back if the son demanded a new inheritance, cursed his father, and then skipped town and ignored him until the money got low again. There is a difference between not earning something (and not even being capable of earning something), and a freely made choice to get rid of it. The concept that a gift one does not earn can not be gotten rid of seems to be a non sequitur argument which has no precedent in either the Bible or in the traditions of the early church.
I'm not a catholic, but my undersanding of Aquinas is that he refered to sin as a free choice to go against God--basically not a lack of good works, but a voluntary made bad action taken against God's intent of how humans are to live. So grace does save and only grace saves, and while works don't save, actively commited and freely choosen bad works that reveal a rotten heart can have the opposite effect.
The early church (the first few centuries) did not proclaim grace alone, and that by saying the "believer's prayer", or whatever, that was all that one needed to do. In fact, a quick ritual or prayer or whatever to seal one's salvation forever, regardless of whatever else is done or not done in one's life, reminds one of gnosticism with its magical sayings and rites that would henceforth ensure this or that in the spirit world without regard for what one actually did or did not do in the material world.
The Catholic church from long ago may have placed more emphasis on works that it should have, but I suspect that much of the reformation worked its reforms by making the equal, if not greater, opposite errors. The early church, and the New Testament, focused on both aspects (e.g., Romans 6 1-14); which seems to make it reasonable that we should do so as well. If the Catholic church does this, then good for it.
The quote is in Ante-Nicene Fathers -- Vol. 5: The Fathers of the Third Century. The specific link over on CCEL is here:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-114.htm#P7129_2334049
St. Cyprian of Carthage seems to have written a lot of interesting stuff.
The Catholic church from long ago may have placed more emphasis on works that it should have, but I suspect that much of the reformation worked its reforms by making the equal, if not greater, opposite errors. The early church, and the New Testament, focused on both aspects (e.g., Romans 6 1-14); which seems to make it reasonable that we should do so as well. If the Catholic church does this, then good for it.
This is where the Church got into problems with the indulgence thing. People had the attitude that if I did X, I'd get Y. This is not how indulgence works. I'd imagine if you went into it simply expecting the indulgence, it would not work as expected.
We still have indulgences in the Catholic Church. One of them is in connection with the Rosary.
"The faithful, whenever they recite a third part of the Rosary with devotion, may gain:
* An indulgence of 5 years
* A Plenary indulgence on the usual conditions, if they do this for an entire month."
If you recited the rosary by rote, simply to earn the indulgence, I'd wonder if that would work? However if you prayed the rosary properly and regularly, if you would not gain the indulgence.
I think the big question is the intent of the works you are performing. Are you working in the soup kitchen to help others as Jesus commanded or to get into heaven?
The Catholic church from long ago may have placed more emphasis on works that it should have
This is somewhat true, but in a limited sense. The Nominalists put a tremendous emphasis on works. In fact, they put works ahead of faith, if I'm not mistaken...at least toward the end of their run. Luther seems to have known the works of the Nominalists. Some have said that it was their theories that he was reacting against. The ideas of the Nominalists were never prevelent, but they were a vocal group. Occam was one of them, if I'm not mistaken.
Luther seems to have known the works of the Nominalists. Some have said that it was their theories that he was reacting against.
Louis Bouyer was a Lutheran who eventually became a Catholic priest. In one of his books (I think it's The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism), he argues that not only was Luther' Catholicism thoroughly nominalistic, but also that the Protestant response to it (Catholic nominalism), including both Luther's and Calvin's, was founded likewise founded in a nominalist worldview.