# Roman Catholic Questions



## JOS3 (Aug 8, 2018)

I have been a member here for some years but have not before formed a post or posed a question in this way. In the spirit of voluntary vulnerability and honestly seeking engagement, I’m posting this one now.

For the last little while (months) I have come to the realization that many of my beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church have been unfounded and wrong. This point is not up for debate, in my mind, but simply a matter of actually engaging those Catholics rather than solely relying on the testimony of those predisposed and antagonistic towards them.

In this—we’ll say exploration—the Reformation foundations of _sola fide_ and _sola scriptura_ have particularly come up with more questions and concerns. These are the wrestlings I am here to seek thoughts on. How do we understand faith as divided from works, and where, prior to Luther, can we find evidence of this in the history of the Church? How do we arrive at Scripture as sole authority without circular reasoning or reliance on authority from the outside (and thus be self-defeating)?

I ask these questions (and the ones that may follow from it) in good faith and honestly seeking conversation. Some of you may rush to anathemas or to claim that I am already wading into the Tiber. I am merely posing questions that I have asked of myself and find that the answers I can come up with are wanting.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 8, 2018)

Hi Julius,
Growing up Parochial, I understand your questions. After engaging many RC apologists in the past, I believe they play a shell game of sorts when interacting. Yes, they believe in justification by faith alone, yet they say that we are as well, saved by our works-which ultimately voids out their idea of J by F alone.

Justification by faith alone is the fountainhead of our Protestant faith. It however, is never alone. The fruit of that faith are works. The works do not add one iota to our salvation but are a result of it.

In regards to sola scriptura. This too is never alone; It is never Solo scriptura. Hebrews 1 says much:

*1* God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 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;

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Heb 1.

This may help:





http://www.semperreformanda.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/creeds.png

Since the Reformed, by and large believe that the office of Prophet is no longer active nor needed, the scriptures are our sole authority we answer to. We all have elders guiding us in these walks, but they are not inspired nor flawless in their offices. They are to get the proper respect an office holder deserves, but it is Christ whom we answer to ultimately. In the counsel of many, there is safety. So, hence, we side on the side of Protestant history as a help in our efforts to remain orthodox.

As far as history goes, there are myriads of data on the web on the doctrines of the Protestant church, i.e. The confession and catechisms. There is the synod of Dordt and it's antithesis in the council of Trent. Luther has a catechism as does Calvin.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 8, 2018)

Julius, welcome to posting at the PB! First of all, your questions are good ones, and will, I hope, be answered by me and others with the charity that honest questions should receive. 

First up, you ask about _sola fide_. Does sola fide show up in the history of the church prior to Luther? The answer is yes, it does. I would direct you to the book edited by Thomas Oden called _The Justification Reader_. It is a collection of quotations and analysis of the early church fathers on the question of justification, and the idea most definitely shows up there, though not with the same level of clarity as at the Reformation. 

Secondly, you ask how we understand faith as divided from works. "Divided from" is probably not the most helpful way of putting things. The reformers would have said that works are "distinct from faith yet inseparable from faith." The question also has to do with whether one is talking about justification or sanctification. In justification, our faith relies on the works of another, and not at all on our own works. Justification is perfect and complete at the moment of faith, and is God's declaration that we are not guilty, based on Christ's righteousness imputed to us. Faith is entirely receptive in justification. It lays hold of Christ, receiving and resting upon Him. Sanctification, however, is the Holy Spirit's work in us to make us more and more alive to righteousness and more and more dead to sin. Faith is active in sanctification, having been activated by the Holy Spirit. Faith and works are inseparable in sanctification. Works are the inevitable result of faith. I like to use the analogy of a cannon. Cannons make a lot of noise when they are fired. But the noise is not the cause of the cannon firing, but the inevitable result of a cannon firing. So works are the inevitable result of faith, but are not the cause of faith, nor are they the cause of our being right with God. Instead, they are the inevitable result of being made right with God. 

Thirdly, you ask about sola Scriptura. There are several pieces to this question, and I will try to look briefly at all of them. Firstly, the authority of Scripture is self-attesting. It carries its own authority. If we were in the same room together, and I saw a gunman about to shoot, and I yelled, at the top of my voice, "DUCK!!" would you stop to examine whether I have the authority to say such things, or would you simply duck? The exclamation, uttered in such an authoritative way, carries its own authority. There are some parallels with Scripture. God speaks through the Word. Therefore, the Word carries the authority of God within itself. It needs no other authenticating agent. See, for instance, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1, and Psalm 119. 

Of course, Scripture having this authority and we believing it are two different things. There is no place we can stand that is more foundational than on Scripture itself. So there is no independent source of logic by which we can prove a starting point. There is a person who can convince us of Scripture's authority, and that person is God himself in the person of the Holy Spirit. Only someone of equal authority with Scripture could possibly convince us that Scripture is the ultimate authority. Since the Holy Spirit is the main agent in the writing of Scripture, it is in the nature of an author telling us about His work. What other authority could be more foundational than God's own authority? Certainly not the church! 

But here, we have to acknowledge and factor in what Rome says about itself. Rome claims that the church is an extension of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and therefore partakes of the same authority as Jesus Christ. However, the New Testament never teaches this, not even when it says that the church is the body of Christ, because even there, there is a distinction between the head and the body, between the bride and the groom. The letters in Revelation surely tell us that the church can err, and therefore does not participate quite so closely in Christ's incarnation! 

Please understand that these things are only the beginning of an answer to your questions. By all means probe further in those places where you still seem to itch.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Edward (Aug 8, 2018)

If you want to know the _official_ beliefs of the Roman church, the best place to start is their Catechism (I haven't looked yet to see if it has been updated for the Jesuit Pope's latest changes on the death penalty). 
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

If you want to know what individual Catholics believe, that's an easier question - pretty much anything you might be able to think of.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2018)

Edward said:


> If you want to know the _official_ beliefs of the Roman church, the best place to start is their Catechism (I haven't looked yet to see if it has been updated for the Jesuit Pope's latest changes on the death penalty).
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
> 
> If you want to know what individual Catholics believe, that's an easier question - pretty much anything you might be able to think of.


Their main theology would be still in the Council of Trent.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> I have been a member here for some years but have not before formed a post or posed a question in this way. In the spirit of voluntary vulnerability and honestly seeking engagement, I’m posting this one now.
> 
> For the last little while (months) I have come to the realization that many of my beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church have been unfounded and wrong. This point is not up for debate, in my mind, but simply a matter of actually engaging those Catholics rather than solely relying on the testimony of those predisposed and antagonistic towards them.
> 
> ...


Look at the theology recorded in their Council of Trent, and also realise that the Church of Rome will use the terms saved by faith and grace, but not as in saved alone, as she adds water baptism and the 7 Sacraments of grace being involved. Basically, a sinner gets spiritual right enough by infusion of grace , which allows God to actually save them. A direct denial of Pauline Justification.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Their main theology would be still in the Council of Trent.



This is probably not how most Catholics (even the Magisterium) would describe it. While Trent has never been repudiated, most in the Roman communion today would claim Vatican II as being of far greater importance than Trent. Practically speaking, almost no one speaks like Trent anymore, except over-zealous converts from Protestantism. 



Dachaser said:


> Look at the theology ecorded in their Council of trent, and also realise that the Church of Rome will use saved by faith and grace, but not as in saved alone, as she adds water baptism and the 7 Sacraments of grace being involved. Basically, a sinner gets spiritual right enough by infusion of grave to allow God to merit save them. A direct denial of Pauline Justification.



Please clean up the many typos and solecisms in this post, David.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> This is probably not how most Catholics (even the Magisterium) would describe it. While Trent has never been repudiated, most in the Roman communion today would claim Vatican II as being of far greater importance than Trent. Practically speaking, almost no one speaks like Trent anymore, except over-zealous converts from Protestantism.
> 
> 
> 
> Please clean up the many typos and solecisms in this post, David.


I know that there was the Vatican II, but is not the official Catholic method of salvation still as was expressed in Trent though?


----------



## Edward (Aug 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Their main theology would be still in the Council of Trent.



That's probably going to be the most unhelpful answer on this thread. Probably followed by my post above. (At least I provided a link to some helpful materials).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JOS3 (Aug 8, 2018)

I appreciate all the responses! Certainly, it seems, the catechism would be the most succinct and official teachings, and I will look into the councils as well.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> How do we arrive at Scripture as sole authority without circular reasoning or reliance on authority from the outside (and thus be self-defeating)?



How do we rely on the Church as sole authority without circular reasoning or reliance on authority from the outside (and thus be self-defeating)?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> I appreciate all the responses! Certainly, it seems, the catechism would be the most succinct and official teachings, and I will look into the councils as well.



The Catholic Catechism is an excellent _resource_. Of course, as I tell converts from Protestantism, you are still using your individual judgment on it even if you agree.


----------



## JOS3 (Aug 8, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> How do we rely on the Church as sole authority without circular reasoning or reliance on authority from the outside (and thus be self-defeating)?



I’m not sure what you mean by the question. Catholics, as far as I know, do not hold that the Church is SOLE authority, but that Scripture is authoritative as well. Church teaching and expounding of that authoritative and infallible Scripture is _also_ authoritative and infallible.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 8, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The Catholic Catechism is an excellent _resource_. Of course, as I tell converts from Protestantism, you are still using your individual judgment on it even if you agree.



Indeed. This is also true of swimming the Tiber. It is not merely a matter of deciding to submit to the church. It is a use of individual judgment that Rome has the answers (which it doesn't).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JOS3 (Aug 8, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> It is a use of individual judgment that Rome has the answers (which it doesn't).



Does Rome maintain that individual judgment is not a part of submission to the Church?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> In this—we’ll say exploration—the Reformation foundations of _sola fide_ and _sola scriptura_ have particularly come up with more questions and concerns. These are the wrestlings I am here to seek thoughts on. How do we understand faith as divided from works, and where, prior to Luther, can we find evidence of this in the history of the Church? How do we arrive at Scripture as sole authority without circular reasoning or reliance on authority from the outside (and thus be self-defeating)?


A nice resource that is reasonably irenic:
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/free-ebook-are-we-together/

See also this very fine piece by Keith Mathison:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/mathison.pdf

While it comes across as vitriolic, the treadmill displayed is indicative of Rome's notions of initial and progressive justification:
http://tinyurl.com/75glvdj

Circular reasoning is not necessarily a bad thing. Ultimately all finite beings with finite understanding argue circularly. It all depends upon how big a circle is being used to hide the fact of circular reasoning from others. Better that we simply admit this while holding fast to the true center of the circle about which we are arguing and reasoning. See also here.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> I’m not sure what you mean by the question. Catholics, as far as I know, do not hold that the Church is SOLE authority, but that Scripture is authoritative as well. Church teaching and expounding of that authoritative and infallible Scripture is _also_ authoritative and infallible.



Jacob can, of course, answer for himself. 

But if I may, you are the one who raised the matter of those who affirm _sola Scriptura_ employing circular reasoning. You said:



JOS3 said:


> How do we arrive at Scripture as sole authority without circular reasoning or reliance on authority from the outside (and thus be self-defeating)?



Do you mean by this question to imply that Rome, by affirming an infallible interpreter of Scripture (the magisterium, particularly the pontiff speaking _ex cathedra)_, avoids or escapes such a "dilemma" in re: circular reasoning? I think that this is what Jacob means, at least in part. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JOS3 (Aug 8, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Jacob can, of course, answer for himself.
> 
> But if I may, you are the one who raised the matter of those who affirm _sola Scriptura_ employing circular reasoning. You said:
> 
> ...



Thanks for asking—I was meaning to respond to Jacob’s assertion in the question that Rome views the Church as the *sole* authority over and against the Protestant view that Scripture is the *sole *authority.

I am under the impression that Rome teaches that *both *the Church tradition *and *Scripture are infallible authorities. I hope this clarifies!

I did raise the question of _Sola Scriptura _and circular reasoning, but Jacob’s response does not seem to address it. Rome seems to claim that, because of having an infallible authority outside of Scripture, they escape the circular reasoning of claiming to the authority and infallibility of Scripture. It goes something like Christ, in giving Peter the keys to the Kingom, personally establishes the Church as authority, part of which involves infallibly canonizing and establishing Scripture as authoritative.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> Church teaching and expounding of that authoritative and infallible Scripture is _also_ authoritative and infallible.


How so? 
Which "church teaching" in particular? 
How can there be more than one authoritative and infallible authority? 

Rome seeks to traverse these issues by declaring, using dubious Scripture support, a single, infallible, apostolic office, the Bishop of Rome, exists.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 8, 2018)

Edward said:


> If you want to know the _official_ beliefs of the Roman church, the best place to start is their Catechism (I haven't looked yet to see if it has been updated for the Jesuit Pope's latest changes on the death penalty).
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
> 
> If you want to know what individual Catholics believe, that's an easier question - pretty much anything you might be able to think of.



This is an important point. As an ex-RC person myself, I think there's a big difference between the official theology of the Vatican and what many ordinary Catholics think down at the level of retail Catholicism at the local parish level.

I suspect that not one Catholic in a thousand has read the Catechism, and probably not one in a million knows anything about the Council of Trent or Catholic history before that. At street level, Catholicism is very different from what happens in the Vatican. Case in point: many, if not most, Catholic women, especially here in the US, have ignored the Vatican's official teachings on birth control.

So, in speaking with individual Catholics, it's best to probe what they know and understand about their faith. That will give you a starting point when having a discussion with them.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## JOS3 (Aug 8, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> How so?
> Which "church teaching" in particular?
> How can there be more than one authoritative and infallible authority?
> 
> Rome seeks to traverse these issues by declaring, using dubious Scripture support, a single, infallible, apostolic office, the Bishop of Rome, exists.



I clarified my previous post, so hopefully that helps. I have not thought about circular reasoning not being a bad thing, so that gives me something to consider.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> I’m not sure what you mean by the question. Catholics, as far as I know, do not hold that the Church is SOLE authority, but that Scripture is authoritative as well. Church teaching and expounding of that authoritative and infallible Scripture is _also_ authoritative and infallible.



Protestants also do not hold that Scripture is the sole authority. It is the final authority. Big difference

But my point is that any Catholic has to reason in a circle to establish the truth of the Church. How do I know that the Church is the highest authority? Because they said so. But they might appeal to Scripture to justify that position (Matt 16, etc). Okay, how can I trust Scripture? Because the church said so.


----------



## JOS3 (Aug 8, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Protestants also do not hold that Scripture is the sole authority. It is the final authority. Big difference
> 
> But my point is that any Catholic has to reason in a circle to establish the truth of the Church. How do I know that the Church is the highest authority? Because they said so. But they might appeal to Scripture to justify that position (Matt 16, etc). Okay, how can I trust Scripture? Because the church said so.



Good clarification—thank you. I suppose I should have said that Rome claims two *infallible* authorities.

It seems like, regarding the _Sola Scriptura _question, the best we can argue is “well, they have the same issue!”


----------



## DTK (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> I’m not sure what you mean by the question. Catholics, as far as I know, do not hold that the Church is SOLE authority, but that Scripture is authoritative as well. Church teaching and expounding of that authoritative and infallible Scripture is _also_ authoritative and infallible.


I understand that many modern day members of the Roman communion, especially their "apologists," reject the charge of _sola ecclesia_, but I don't think they can effectively answer that charge. If the magisterium (their term for church) is the judge both of tradition and of Scripture, then how can it be otherwise than _sola ecclesia_? Many of their own theologians and members of their magisterium affirm this description. Notice the following citations from the following Roman cardinals...

*Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Henry Edward Manning (1808-1892):* It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at _this hour_, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church? No individual, no number of individuals can go back through eighteen hundred years to reach the doctrines of antiquity. We may say with the woman of Samaria, ‘Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with.’ No individual mind now has contact with the revelation of the Pentecost, *except through the Church*. Historical evidence and biblical criticism are human after all, and amount to no more than opinion, probability, human judgment, human tradition.
It is not enough that the fountain of our faith be Divine. It is necessary that the channel be divinely constituted and preserved. But in the second chapter we have seen that the Church contains the fountain of faith in itself, and is not only the channel divinely created and sustained, but the very presence of the spring-head of the water of life, ever fresh and ever flowing in all ages of the world. I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. The Church is always primitive and always modern at one and the same time; and alone can expound its own mind, as an individual can declare his own thoughts. ‘For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God.’ *The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. *Henry Edward Manning, _The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation_ (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

Cardinal Manning's words above are a declaration of _sola ecclesia _with a vengeance. And then, speaking of the difficulty of the so-called Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable _locus theologicus_ in Catholic theology, *Cardinal Congar wrote:* “Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts. But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than judicial. . . . Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room for a judgment made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church's faith.” Yves M.-J. Congar, _Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay _(London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 398-399.

And then *Cardinal Congar* even goes on to insist “It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.” Yves M.-J. Congar, _Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay _(London: Burns & Oats, 1966), p. 399.

When members of the Roman communion are willing to be honest, then they must admit, in the end, their submission to the principle of _sola ecclesia_.

Neither the principle of _sola ecclesia_ nor _sola scriptura_ mean that the church or scripture are sole authorities. What is meant by each is this; _Sola ecclesia _means that the church is the *sole ultimate, infallible authority *(i.e. from a Roman perspective), whereas _sola scriptura_ means that Holy Scripture is the *sole ultimate, infallible authority. * Albeit Protestants deny their communion to be infallible. In a Roman apologist's rejection of the description of _sola ecclesia_, he cannot be honest with his own system of belief.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> It seems like, regarding the _Sola Scriptura _question, the best we can argue is “well, they have the same issue!”


Supposing, for the sake of argument, it was _the very best _rebuttal, or even just the best we could come up with. Under the conditions of the argument, Rome has a problem that we do not. Rome's assertion is that somehow (with a handwave) they see no problem, hence it does not exist.

Rome has wished away her irreducible epistemic quandary--an *objective* issue which we, for our part, have acknowledged is as much something we have to deal with as they must. But theirs is not a real solution; it is a _stipulation _that is demanded by their _a priori _convictions about themselves. Rome is first and foremost a believer (_de fide_) in its own authority.

Rome's (the papacy's) fundamental _authoritative _claim was (as Luther discovered) the actual reason why the institution (the papal adjunct, not the church itself) could not be reformed. The church's obscuration of the gospel was a tragic effect of many ills in the church by the 16th century; but no ill was more to be blamed for resistance to healing than the attitude at the top that it could not be sick.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> Good clarification—thank you. I suppose I should have said that Rome claims two *infallible* authorities.
> 
> It seems like, regarding the _Sola Scriptura _question, the best we can argue is “well, they have the same issue!”



I would not put it like this. We have to start by realizing that we are finite beings who do not have any kind of bedrock that could possibly be more foundational than God's own revelation to us. Any kind of confirmation of any kind of absolute authority, therefore, has to come from outside us. The question is this: does that confirmation come from the church, or does it come from the Holy Spirit? The Reformers say the latter, and Rome says the former. Now, Rome might try to say that it comes from the Holy Spirit through the church. But in practice, it just comes from the church, even if their teaching contradicts what Scripture says. So, when contemplating how it is that we can give our trust fully to an authority, we simply ask this: do I trust God or human beings? 

And Jacob, by the way, raised a very important point in that the Reformers never believed that Scripture was the sole authority, only that it is the only ultimate authority. They believed that the church had an authority higher than the individual but less than Scripture, since the church was fallible, whereas Scripture is not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DTK (Aug 8, 2018)

As an aside, the belief that Holy Scripture is self-attesting apart from the judgment of the church was by no means a principle that was novel with, or introduced by, the reformers. The early church fathers embraced this principle as well. I'll simply quote from my favorite early church presbyter...

*Salvian the Presbyter (5th century):* I need not prove by arguments what God Himself proves by His own words. When we read that God says He perpetually sees the entire earth, we prove thereby that He does see it because He Himself says He sees it. When we read that He rules all things He has created, we prove thereby that He rules, since He testifies that He rules. When we read that He ordains all things by His immediate judgment, it becomes evident by this very fact, since He confirms that He passes judgment.* All other statements, said by men, require proofs and witnesses. God’s word is His own witness, because whatever uncorrupted Truth says must be the undefiled testimony to truth*. _Fathers of the Church, Vol. 3, The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter, The Governance of God, _Book 3.1 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947), pp. 68-69.
*Latin text:* Neque enim necesse est ut argumentis a me probetur quod hoc ipso quia a Deo dicitur comprobatur. Itaque cum legimus dictum a Deo quia aspiciat jugiter omnem terram, hoc ipso probamus quod aspicit quia aspicere se dicit; cum legimus quod regat cuncta quae fecit, hoc ipso approbamus quod regit, quia se regere testatur; cum legimus quod praesenti judicio universa dispenset, hoc ipso est evidens quod judicat quia se judicare confirmat. Alia enim omnia, id est, humana dicta, argumentis ac testibus egent. Dei autem sermo ipse sibi testis est, quia necesse est quidquid incorrupta veritas loquitur, incorruptum sit testimonium veritatis. _Sancti Salviani Massiliensis Presbyteri De Gubernatione Dei, _Liber Tertius, §1, PL 53:57.

I add the following for good measure . . . Salvian goes on to say...

*Salvian the Presbyter: *But I am afraid that we do not observe them [i.e. the scriptures] well, do not read them with attention either, because there is less guilt in not reading the Holy Scriptures than in violating them after having read them. To be sure, the other nations either do not have the Law of God, or they have it in a weakened and maimed way, and, therefore, as I have said, they have it in such a manner that they do not have it at all. For, if there are any barbarian nations who in their books seem to have the Holy Scriptures less interpolated or torn into shreds than others, nevertheless they have them as they were corrupted by the tradition of their old teachers. *Therefore, they have tradition rather than Scripture. They do not keep what the truth of the Law teaches, but what the wickedness of a bad tradition has inserted.* _Fathers of the Church, Vol. 3, The Governance of God, _Book 5, §2 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947), pp. 129-130.
*Latin text:* Sed vereor quod qui non bene observamus, nec bene lectitemus: quia minor reatus est sancta non legere, quam lecta violare. Caeterae quippe nationes aut non habent legem Dei, aut debilem et convulneratam habent; ac per hoc, ut diximus, non habent quae sic habent. Nam etsi qui gentium barbararum sunt qui in libris suis minus videantur Scripturam sacram interpolatam habere vel laceram, habent tamen veterum magistrorum traditione corruptam, ac per hoc traditionem potius quam Scripturam habent, quia hoc non retinent quod veritas legis suadet, sed quod pravitas malae traditionis inseruit. _Sancti Salviani Massiliensis Presbyteri De Gubernatione Dei, _Liber Quintus, §2, PL 53:95.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Jack K (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> the Protestant view that Scripture is the *sole *authority.



A couple of points you may find helpful...

First, I'm not sure that Scripture as our sole authority is actually the right way to state the protestant position. I realize we speak of_ sola Scriptura_, which gives us five neat _solas_ to remember. But in the case of Scripture,_ sola_ is probably not the best word we could use. Reformed protestants believe there is also some measure of authority in the church and its creeds, in the preached word, or even in such things as divine providences that may lead us to take various actions. Now, all these must be subject to Scripture, which is our supreme authority by virtue of its clarity and inerrancy and the fact that it comes directly from God. But as an authority, it is_ supreme_ rather than_ sole_. Even many protestants miss this, and end up with improper disregard for the church.

Second, it may help to stop thinking about circular arguments and instead ask,_ what ends the argument?_ Children understand this well. They know that if they keep questioning their father, the argument will eventually end with dad saying, "Well, I'm your father and what I say goes." There's no more to argue at that point, because dad's word is the end of the argument. In much the same way, when it comes to godly truth, God's word is the end of the argument. There is nowhere higher to appeal. The protestant position is that the Bible has inherent authority due to its inspiration by the Holy Spirit. So when you get to the Bible, you have reached the point of "God says so." This is not an occasion for circling back and re-asking old questions, but rather the end point we are looking for.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> Does Rome maintain that individual judgment is not a part of submission to the Church?


I do not see how this could be so, given the CCC on the moral conscience.

CHAPTER ONE - THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
ARTICLE 6- MORAL CONSCIENCE
...
...
*1792 *Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, *rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching*, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.​

This site has what I consider the most user-friendly access to the CCC in a variety of methods, including indexes and searching:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> It seems like, regarding the _Sola Scriptura _question, the best we can argue is “well, they have the same issue!”


I do think this bears repeating from one of my earlier responses:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/mathison.pdf

It is edifying to Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, especially as relates to the often seen claim that _Sola Scriptura_ is indefensible.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> It seems like, regarding the _Sola Scriptura _question, the best we can argue is “well, they have the same issue!”



That's true for any infallible authority claim. Press them on it. For too long Rome and EO have gotten away with "Protestant = every man a pope and 600,000 denominations." 

They want to provide a level of certainty they can't deliver. Pope francis has actually helped us in this regard.


----------



## Deleted member 7239 (Aug 8, 2018)

I will allow the more educated men to speak here, but as a former Roman Catholic myself I am curious if the OP is a former Roman Catholic or what experience he has with that church.


----------



## JOS3 (Aug 8, 2018)

Romans5eight said:


> I will allow the more educated men to speak here, but as a former Roman Catholic myself I am curious if the OP is a former Roman Catholic or what experience he has with that church.



I am not a former Roman Catholic and have very little actual experience. Largely because of that, I am just now beginning to explore Roman belief.


----------



## Edward (Aug 8, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> and 600,000 denominations



The proper reply to which is "And 24 Catholic denominations".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DTK (Aug 8, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> It seems like, regarding the _Sola Scriptura _question, the best we can argue is “well, they have the same issue!”


Only a few comments in response to your original post and already you're prepared to make such a statement? Both scripture and church history cry out against the grandiose claims of Romanism. It's not simply that Romanists have the same problem; it's that all the dogmas peculiar to Rome cannot be substantiated either by Holy Scripture or church history. What makes Romanism attractive to folk is the guise of perfectionism under which it masquerades. But when the dogmas peculiar to that system are examined against the scrutiny of Scripture, history, and even tradition, it all collapses under the weight of its own claims.

Just in case I am misunderstood, I use the terms "Romanism" and "Romanists" not to be perjorative, but to isolate precisely both the system and its adherents for the sake of identification (after all, I don't mind being called a "Calvinist"). There is nothing "catholic" about the dogmas peculiar to Rome. Take for instance papal primacy, papal infallibility, purgatory, the Marian dogmas, indulgences, ecclesial infallibility - none of these dogmas can stand before the scrutiny of Scripture, history, or the tradition of the church.

Bear in mind that Rome requires all its dogmas to be matters of "de fide," i.e. necessary to believe for one to be saved. To become a member of the Roman communion, you must accept what Rome defines to be necessary to be a member of that communion. That is why the system is not "catholic"; in reality it is _sola Roma_, the gospel according to Rome.

If you wish, take one dogma peculiar to Rome at a time, and I and others will be happy to address each one at a time.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## DTK (Aug 8, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> They want to provide a level of certainty they can't deliver.


Apart from all that is θεόπνευστος, never was a truer word spoken!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 8, 2018)

"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."

(Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther. tr. James L. Schaaf, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985–93, 1:460.)



JOS3 said:


> It seems like, regarding the _Sola Scriptura _question, the best we can argue is “well, they have the same issue!”



It is not the same issue. Scripture and church history testify against the papist's claim of infallibility. One need only look as far as Vatican II to see how fundamentally changed are the doctrines of the Roman religion since the time of Trent. Compare Trent's anathemas of all protestantism with Vatican II's universalism. According to one document I'm a heretic, and according to another I'm a "lost brother" and even a pagan can make it to heaven so long as he is honest. A papist will say that "doctrine does not change, it only develops." But he cannot face serious scrutiny of that claim.

For another example, remember that Luther was excommunicated as a heretic, but today's pope honoured him on the anniversary of the Reformation. It's not merely inconsistent, but absurd, and even more so when the papists attempt to dance around the obvious discrepancies.

This should make anyone immediately reject the magisterium's supposed authority.

On the authority of Scripture, see the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1. (Section V is below.) Holy Scripture does not suffer from the same weaknesses as the Roman tradition.

_V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. *And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God*: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts._

https://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Florida Reforming (Aug 18, 2018)

Rome does claim Scripture as an authority but ONLY has currently defined by the Vatican magisterium; this completely negates Scripture as authority. Their so-called authoritative tradition/magisterium changes over the years so that post-Vatican II Romanism is diametrically opposed to some of the teachings before the council. The relatively few traditional Catholics are well aware of this and disagree among themselves as how to handle it.

Romanism has consistently denied the gospel from its inception to the present. The papacy fulfills to a T the prophecies of the Antichrist as nearly all Christians of the last 1500 years have acknowledged and as is taught clearly in Reformed theology and creeds.


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 18, 2018)

However much the Romanists say that both Scripture and tradition are authority, in practice they elevate the latter in their interpretation of the former. Where Scripture opposes their fancies, they necessarily resort to the mutilation of it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Aug 18, 2018)

And now, the floodgates have opened once again regarding the rampant homosexuality in the Roman Catholic Church, with the grand jury's report running about 1500 pages, I hear - and covering just three dioceses in Pennsylvania, not even the whole state.

I understand that Roman Catholic seminaries have been hotbeds of homosexuality since the 1960s.

As an ex-Roman Catholic (left around 1970), I'm glad I got out and found the truth.


----------



## ZackF (Aug 18, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> I am not a former Roman Catholic and have very little actual experience. Largely because of that, I am just now beginning to explore Roman belief.



The best way to put it is Roman 'beliefs.' This death penalty change is a change and a big one. JPII's scruple on the DP was its prudence in the modern world. SJW Francis, says it is a categorical evil. Not even the most painstakingly hairsplitting Thomists can reconcile the two positions let alone the historical position held by pre-VII popes.

edit: terrible typos


----------



## DTK (Aug 18, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> However much the Romanists say that both Scripture and tradition are authority, in practice they elevate the latter in their interpretation of the former.


It is altogether true that they only pay "lip service" to Holy Scripture, but "tradition" for them is what they invent it to be when it comes to the dogmas peculiar to Rome. Thus I contend that their real rule of faith is neither Scripture nor tradition for the dogmas peculiar to Rome, but the living voice of their magisterium at the present, or in short _sola Roma_.

I think that the following observations of Lane are "spot on."

*Anthony N. S. Lane:* A dogma like that of the Assumption [of Mary] condemns both Scripture and early tradition to material insufficiency in practice. The unfolding view [i.e. of development] is not a return from the supplementary [Trent] to the coincidence view [i.e. Scripture and tradition bear the same content] but rather an advance beyond the supplementary view in that tradition has now been found wanting. It represents not a renewed confidence in Scripture but a loss of confidence in tradition. See A. N .S. Lane’s “Scripture, Tradition and Church” in _Vox Evangelica_, Vol. 16, 1975, p. 48.

*Anthony N. S. Lane:* The normative status of ecclesiastical dogmas and decisions is still a point of dispute between Catholics and Protestants. Again, Catholic thought may be moving away from the model of development, but a doctrine like the Assumption still condemns Catholic theology to the de facto material insufficiency of both Scripture and tradition. See A. N .S. Lane’s “Scripture, Tradition and Church” in _Vox Evangelica_, Vol. 16, 1975, p. 50.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Aug 19, 2018)

DTK said:


> It is altogether true that they only pay "lip service" to Holy Scripture, but "tradition" for them is what they invent it to be when it comes to the dogmas peculiar to Rome. Thus I contend that their real rule of faith is neither Scripture nor tradition for the dogmas peculiar to Rome, but the living voice of their magisterium at the present, or in short _sola Roma_.
> 
> I think that the following observations of Lane are "spot on."
> 
> ...



Well said.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Aug 20, 2018)

JOS3 said:


> I have been a member here for some years but have not before formed a post or posed a question in this way. In the spirit of voluntary vulnerability and honestly seeking engagement, I’m posting this one now.
> 
> For the last little while (months) I have come to the realization that many of my beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church have been unfounded and wrong. This point is not up for debate, in my mind, but simply a matter of actually engaging those Catholics rather than solely relying on the testimony of those predisposed and antagonistic towards them.
> 
> ...



Julius,

If you're interested in a more in-depth study, get your hands on Chemnitz's volumes on An Examination of the Council of Trent. This is the classic standard for these kinds of questions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dudley (Aug 21, 2018)

JOS3 I am an ex Roman Catholic and left that church in 2006. For many reasons I became very disenchanted with the Roman catholic church, which under Joseph Ratzinger I thought was moving backwards to a pre Vatican II mentality. I decided to leave the RCC in January 2006 and I spent 4 years exploring all the major Protestant denominations. I also started reading about the Reformation and I read the scriptures. When I started to read about John Calvin, and John Knox and the Presbyterians and the Reformed faith I knew that I had found the pure gospel of grace and the faith the way it is according to the scriptures. I made a Public affirmation of faith in the Presbyterian church I am now a member of and I wrote this piece several years ago and I think it may answer some of the questions you addressed particularly faith alone verses the RC teaching of faith and works. Please also feel free to ask me any questions, you may e amail me at [email protected]

“I am now completely Protestant in Doctrine and Conviction”
by Dudley Davis
I just completed an intense study of the Protestant doctrine of faith alone. I am a former Roman catholic and have been a Presbyterian now for almost 8 years. I have renounced all Roman catholic teachings which contradict the scriptures. I am now convinced and believe it is by Grace alone we are saved,and that grace opens us to have faith alone in Christ alone which is the true message of the Gospel of salvation. It is Scripture alone which is our only and final authority, not the pope of Rome or any man, only Jesus Christ heads His church. I believe all praise and glory belongs to God alone and not Mary or the Roman Catholic saints. I am now completely Protestant in doctrine and conviction.

I also now believe that the way that I understand the Gospel is that we are saved by faith alone apart from any works. I think that is the way that the Gospel needs to be preached and understood. In my notes I wrote a paper last year on the subject called "The Roman Catholic view of Justification and the Protestant view is a strong dividing line between being RC and being Protestant"

I realize now as an ex Roman catholic that I was brainwashed with teachings which were not biblical and defied the true message of salvation. I found tonight the following list of verses about being saved by faith. I took note that faith and works are contrasted. In other words, we are saved by faith "not by works" and "apart from works", etc. The point is that there are only two options. We are saved by faith alone or we are not. Since we have faith and works (both conceptually and in practice), then we are either saved by faith alone or by faith and works. There is no other option.

If we see that the scriptures exclude works in any form as a means of our salvation, then logically, we are saved by faith alone. I took a look at what the Bible says about faith and works. Last year we did a study of Romans in our bible class. Saved by faith alone is all throughout Romans. Roman Catholicism uses as the argument for faith and works James statement in James 2:24 I also looked again at James' statement about "faith alone" which was always used by the RCC as an argument against the Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith alone and I will state what I believe is the misinterpretation Rome gives or implies with James.
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one." 
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness," 
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," 
Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith." 
Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." 
Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace." 
Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified." 
Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. 
Gal. 3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6 Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 
Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith." 
Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9 Not by works, lest any man should boast." 
Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith." 
Again, works/Law is contrasted with faith repeatedly and we are told that we are not justified by works in any way. Therefore, we are made right with God by faith, not by faith and our works; hence, faith alone.
James 2:24, not by faith alone.....or the misinterpretation Rome gives.
The scriptures clearly teach that we are saved (justified) by faith in Christ and what He has done on the cross. This faith alone saves us. However, we cannot stop here without addressing what James says in James 2:24, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
There is no contradiction. All you need to do is look at the context. James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us not to show favoritism. Verses 8-13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works.
James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith but has no works, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14 ). In other words, James is addressing the issue of a dead faith, a faith that is nothing more than a verbal pronouncement, a public confession of the mind, and is not heart-felt. It is empty of life and action. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17, words without actions). Then he shows that type of faith isn't any different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith that has words followed by actions. Works follow true faith and demonstrate that faith to our fellow man, but not to God. In brief, James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20). But, he is not contradicting the verses above that says salvation/justification is by faith alone.
The Roman catholic church so sadly distorts the true message of salvation. I can now say as John says: “I confess that through my faith in Jesus Christ I have full assurance of salvation” (1 John 5:11-13).

I know now “I am saved” not that I will be saved. I think I am beginning to shed some of the last false teachings of Roman Catholicism which had lead me to almost loosing faith altogether. I thank God my eyes were opened to the truth and I am now a Protestant.
Dudley A Davis Jr


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 25, 2018)

There have been some really excellent responses to the original post. I don't seek to improve upon them but to offer a couple of other things. I grew up Roman Catholic and my family is largely still trapped in its idolatry.

First, my brother has sought to interact with me on the question of Sola Scriptura and follows a typical RCC line that misses the point of ultimate authority. We know, from Divine Revelation, that Scripture has the inherent nature that it is breathed out by God (theopneustas). By default, then, we know that it has the quality of being God's own Revelation to man. The issue of authority is not whether other sources of authority exist but whether any other authority can stand on the same plane as Scripture and claim equal _status_ with the Scripture.

Thus, the Protestant does not have the burden of proof to demonstrate that his authority is infallible and inerrant but any claimant to _another_ source of authority that is equal to this authority needs to be proven. By default, the Scriptures alone have this inherent quality of inerrancy and infalliblity and "God-breathedness" and having the imprimatur of Divine authority. The Roman Catholic Church _claims_ that its tradition has the same level of authority but it merely claims this. It cannot be demonstraed exegetically and, as DTK and others have demonstrated, their claims of authority amount to trusting what the Church states the Scriptures and tradition teach. Thus, the Roman Catholic is obliged to trust the Church of its day and cannot personally decide what the Scriptures or tradition teach but must rely upon the Magisterium of his day to tell him what that teaching is. 

Next, with respect to the relationship between faith and works, this relationship is not found in a set of propositions but the relationship is found in a Person - namely the One Mediator between God and Man (the Lord Jesus Christ).

In the Fall, mankind was plunged into an estate of sin and misery. We are under the Curse of a Covenant and we are not only guilty of Adam's sin but we are corrupt in our whole nature (sinners). We are under the wrath and curse of God. We are guilty of Adam's sin and enslaved in our whole mind and being to sin's demands.

In the Gospel, Christ's death and resurrection have not only put away the guilt of our sin in Adam by His vicarious death but He broke the power of sin and death to enslave us. His atonement purchased our redemption and this includes all the evangelical graces that come from being united to Him (regeneration, faith, justification, sanctification, and glorification). By faith (purchased by Christ) we lay hold of Christ and His righteousness and are united to His death and resurrection. Christ unites us while still corrupt (sinners) but we are declared righteous _in Him_. He unites us as sinners but has broken the dominion of our corruption (sin) and, by His Spirit, He makes us holy and enables us to more and more put sin (corruption) to death within our members.

Thus, positionally, we are in Christ and sanctification (good works) flows from that same Person Whose Spirit conforms us more and more to His image.

Rome, in contrast, sees grace not as union with a Person (Christ) but a dispensing of a type of substance through the sacraments of the Church. In baptism they see the guilt of sin washed away and deny that we are, in any way, sinners. Grace is imparted to our natures that serve a receptacles of this grace and we must cooperate with it or we will eventually (by giving in to sin) wound or even destroy that imparted grace through the sacraments. The Roman Catholic view is that God looks at people and justifies them not on the basis of Christ's righteousness but _their own righteousness_. This is why if they fail to cooperate with grace and sin they can destroy the grace of baptism and be judged by God to be sinners and go to Hell. They offer penance as a "second plank" of justification for those who have made "shipwreck of their souls". 

It's not that the Reformed deny the necessity of good works but we deny the Roman Catholic schema. We deny that justification is on the basis of sanctification. The basis for justification is union with Christ because He has purchased us individually. We are elected by God that Our Mediator would die for us and unite us to Him to make us holy - nobody can snatch us from His hand. Justification is based on Christ's righteousness accounted to us while sanctification is the work of Christ to renew us in our whole person. 

The Roman Catholic schema sees the Church as the Incarnation of Christ in contrast to our view that the Lord Jesus Christ is that Incarnation and not the Church itself. Roman Catholics receive grace from the Church's sacraments. The Scriptures teach that grace is a function of being united to Christ and the Church declares the work of Christ in our behalf. The Roman Catholic Church sees Saints as attaining to more merit than they need to be declared righteous, in themselves, so that it can dispense grace through the Sacraments and through indulgences from its treasury of merits. The Scriptures teach that all are corrupt in their persons and could never stand before the wrath of a Holy God on the basis of their own righteousness but only because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that we should go to Mary or the other Saints as mediators before God. The Scriptures testify that there is One Mediator between God and Man. The Roman Catholic Church teaches a monstrous doctrine that Christ's sacrifice is constantly offered for the Church on the altar and that it can only aid but never perfects those who draw near to it. The Scriptures teach that Christ died once and for all for sinners and that His One Atonement avails to all. Christ is seated as High Priest because He offered Himself once for sin and perfects all who draw near to Him in faith. The Church has no need for priests because Christ is the fulfillment of the priesthood and is the perfect Priest in as mediator.

Reactions: Informative 3


----------

