Why Apologetics is Important

One of my favorite quotes from John Paul II comes from his book entitled Love and Responsibility:

We love the person complete with all his or her virtues and faults, and up to a point independently of those virtues and in spite of those faults.  The strength of such a love emerges most clearly when the beloved person stumbles, when his or her weaknesses or even sins come into the open.  One who truly loves does not then withdraw his love, but loves all the more, loves in full consciousness of the other’s shortcomings and faults, and without in the least approving of them.  For the person as such never loses its essential value.  The emotion which attaches itself to the value of the person remains loyal to the human being. –p. 135

At the heart of this quote is the exhortation to love in the truth of the other.  How often do we (or at least I) pursue a relationship in-as-much as it gives me joy? How often do we (or at least I) rest safely in relationships of common interests, hobbies, ideologies, philosophies, leisure activities, or goals?  How often do we, in the name of ecumenism, pursue relationships with a “least common denominator” framework of mind?  Are these relationships love? Of course they are!  Are they expressions of mature love? I don’t think so!

But won’t “divisive topics” threaten the relationship? For the person of pride yes, but for the humble one there is no fear.  In fact, it is precisely in the divisive topics that one is able to experience mature and genuine love.  When one loves “all the more” in these circumstances they discover for themselves the bedrock of love.  This bedrock is the activity of genuinely loving that which is “other” to oneself.  In other words, it is the act of loving not for the sake of pleasure which is rooted in self-seeking, but rather loving that which lies outside of one’s own preferences, interests, and even values.  Such a love ensures one is loving not a self-reflection, although faint, but rather that which is outside of him/herself.  This may be difficult as it can lead to conflict, but genuine love calls for it.  Of course, for one to love the “other” of another person, knowledge of what constitutes “other” must be present in the person loving!  Ignorant love does not have the person as its object but rather ignorance as its object.

With the foundation laid, we may now address why apologetics (the art of defending one’s ideas, beliefs, and values) is so important.  In light of what has been addressed above, apologetics, when properly used, is the fertile ground by which mature ecumenical love grows!  To be a great defender of the faith, one must: 1) Know one’s own beliefs and be able to articulate them clearly; 2) Know the opposing views clearly so as to distinguish fairly one’s own beliefs from other beliefs.  Isn’t that precisely the foundation by which mature love is built upon?  Apologetics affords the person the opportunity to love “the other” of a person and not simply that which is held in common.  It prevents “self-reflecting” love and encourages “self-donating” love.

All this being said, I’m aware that apologetics has often been the instrument of harm rather than love.  My past is riddled with such offenses and I’m deeply sorry for the people I have offended! Nonetheless this does nothing to diminish the value of apologetics in the same way that divorce does nothing to devalue the institution of marriage.  Like all good things, it can be twisted and used for evil rather than good.

Reflecting on my days at the Evangelical seminary I attended, my most intimate friendships were those in which our differences were clearly articulated and defended.  While I was oblivious to the reasons why at the time, I now understand why they became my dearest friends.  Through a little bit of maturity and the proper foundation we were able to appreciate and love each other for who we were, not who we wanted the other to be or by pretending the other was something they weren’t.

As for the present, I currently serve as the president of RCO (Religious Campus Organizations), which is a group on campus that supervises and works with all the other religious groups on campus.  I believe it is without coincidence that my closest friend and confidant within the group is a Lutheran minister with whom I have had the most apologetic dialogue.  We both know exactly where the other stands, and we both think the other holds ridiculous beliefs yet we have a deep respect for each other even in the differences.

My deepest prayer for the community of St. Thomas and all those who read my apologetic material is that it would be used to educate on the differences between Catholics and non-Catholics.  That such an education would increase confidence in the faith and to offer tools for entering into genuine dialogue with others who do not share this faith.  Finally, and most importantly, my prayer is that this dialogue would lead to mature ecumenical love for one another: a love that is rooted in both common interests and that which is “otherly” thus forming a love that encompasses the whole person.  May God be Praised!

Justifying The Doctrine of Justification: Part VI of VI

What began nearly six months ago is finally coming to a close. For some of you this may have been five columns too many, and for others it may have barely satiated your desire to know the truth which has set you free! For the former I sincerely apologize if the reading has not been compelling enough or has come across too polemical for someone who values ecumenism. My next column will offer a “behind the scenes” look at why I recently decided to spend so much time on apologetics and the paramount importance it offers for the cultivation of genuine friendships with our non-Catholic brothers and sisters. For those who have been barely satiated, I simply invite you to contact me for more information on this and other topics that may be close to your mind and heart.

In the past five columns we have covered a number of angles to the doctrine of Justification: It’s overall importance among Catholics and Protestants, the distinction between “once saved, always saved” and salvation as a process, the difference between imputed and infused righteousness, the teachings of Christ regarding faith and works, and St. Paul’s perspective on faith and works. We are now at a point to examine a couple passages outside the Gospels and the Pauline corpus with the intention to show the integrity of Scripture as it pertains to justification as expressed and defended by the Catholic Church.

It is a curious fact that while Luther believed justification by “faith alone” would be the pillar by which the Church stood or fell, the phrase “faith alone” is itself only used once in Scripture and it is preceded by ‘not.’ The Epistle of James states, “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (Jms. 2.24). With all due respect to our separated brothers and sisters, a belief in a doctrine that is explicitly condemned in Scripture can be a puzzling thing to the Catholic. The strong undercurrent, which forces the non-Catholic Christian to “re-interpret” such a lucid and self-interpreting passage, lies hidden in the phrase “competitive causality.” For the Evangelical, what man causes, God cannot simultaneously cause and what God causes, man cannot simultaneously cause. Such a belief makes sense out of most of life. After all, if ‘X’ is the murderer then that means all of ‘not X’ is not the murderer.

In light of this particular interpretive lens, one may be able to see why many Evangelicals are gravely opposed to a justification that includes works. If works are something the person does, that means the person has exclusive rights to those works and that God has absolutely no role in their causation. All that being said, the inferred conclusion is that a works included justification means a salvation that is earned because he/she brought its own causation without God through good works. By “reinterpreting” James they are in fact pruning a difficult passage in the name of a greater cause: That God is our salvation, not man!

For the Catholic there is no need to re-interpret James since we see no conflict with what St. James has to say and the fact that God is the exclusive cause of our salvation. The reason why there is no conflict for the Catholic is because we do not believe there is any competition between God and the human person regarding causality. In fact, the more God is actively in our life, the freer we actually become! Thus, while it is true that God causes every good work in us, it does not take away from our own causation of the good work. In truth, it is precisely because of God’s causing of the good work that we can freely cause that good work in ourselves. Thus, James need not be dismissed, ignored, or twisted for a “greater cause.” Yes, it is Christ and only Christ who saves me, and no amount of good works threatens that reality as those good works are as much His as they are mine. For more information on particular Protestant interpretations of James and for a Catholic response, see my second column on this series.

One would think the majority of Christians would exhaustively comb through the Book of Revelation searching for clues to the mystery of justification. After all, the concept of personal judgment saturates the Book of Revelation so why not turn to it as well for doctrinal assistance particularly in the area of salvation?

While the Book of Revelation has been the source of many fanciful and downright silly interpretations, there is at least one particularly cogent section that we will turn to so as not to stake a theological claim on an exegetically complicated passage. Chapters two and three consist of seven short letters to the seven distinct Churches in the region of Ephesus. Each letter consists of a particular judgment on the Church addressed, and it is Jesus Christ, while being penned by John, who personally addresses each Church. These judgments are useful as they speak explicitly for the need of good works for salvation, but with a strong implicit recognition for heart-felt faith. The first Church in Ephesus is prized for the patient endurance in suffering and persecution for the faith, but they are quickly admonished for abandoning their first love (cf. Rev. 2.1-7). Christ then encourages them to do the works they committed to at the beginning of their faith journey or else Christ would remove himself from them. Christ never says, “I know your faith” to any of these Churches but rather, “I know your works.” As I said many times in many different ways, to deny works as part of justification is to deny—or be ignorant of at best—a very large body of Scripture.

As Catholics, we are called to live a life of faith, but we are also called to live a life of service in love to our Lord. Our salvation rests on this Truth. May we continue to love and serve our Lord through faith and works, but may we do it not to gain an eternal reward but simply because God is God! May God be Praised!

Justifying the Doctrine of Justification: Part V of VI

With the end of this series in sight, it is time to address what some would say to be the Achilles’ heal of the Catholic Church’s position on justification: St. Paul. We noticed earlier that Jesus Himself spoke very little of faith as pertaining to the Kingdom of God/Heaven. For St. Paul, faith becomes a dominant theological theme which saturates nearly every letter stemming from the proverbial pen of this Apostle to the Gentiles. The question, then, is not whether or not Paul believes that a Christian is saved by faith, but whether or not he believes the Christian is saved by faith alone. As stated earlier, the Church confesses that faith is the foundation for justification but that this faith is never alone as it must be accompanied by charity/good works.

If Paul is considered the chief defender of faith alone by many Evangelicals, then Paul’s letter to the Romans is considered his magnum opus in defense of this particular non-Catholic doctrine. Due to the triteness of space I will limit the discussion to what most of our Evangelical brothers and sisters claim to be the most persuasive exposition of faith alone theology by St. Paul. Thus, I will briefly focus on the first few chapters of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.

The power of the Gospel message in Romans, according to many Evangelicals, does not begin until 3:21 with the words ‘but now’ (Nuni de). It is here in the middle of the third chapter that Paul transitions into a descriptive analysis of the “righteousness of God” being revealed “apart from the law” (v. 21), being a free gift of grace in Jesus Christ (v.24), and being a reality that removes all boasting from the human conscience through this free gift (v.27). The climax of the passage comes in the following verse when the apostle boldly proclaims, “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (v. 28). At this moment, it seems undeniably true that St. Paul is excluding works from salvation, thus at least implicitly expositing a faith alone theology.

When I was an Evangelical and first came across this verse, I was baffled by it. The reason for my confusion had less to do with the verse itself and more with what I had read previously as I was reading the letter from beginning to end. Before I came to 3:28, I read 2:6-11. It was in chapter two that I read that everyone would be justified by their deeds: “For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury” (Rom. 2.6-8). Knowing that St. Paul was simply too intelligent to contradict himself within verses of each other, I set out on a journey to find an answer to this enigma, and this journey ultimately led me back to the Catholic Church in March of 2000.

Being an Evangelical at the time, my first pursuit was to find an answer that would support my belief in justification by faith alone. This quest led me to two explanations of Romans 2 & 3. The more popular and convincing argument of the two was grounded in a particular interpretation of the phrase “but now” in 3:21. Many non-Catholic scholars viewed this phrase as a “temporal transition.” In other words, they believed that everything before 3:21 was an explanation of the Old Covenant with God, and everything after 3:21 dealt with how one was saved in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. The problem with this explanation is that a significant amount of Christian imagery pervades 1:18-3:20 which become foreign elements if one is forced to think exclusively through an Old Covenant lens. For instance, the concept of “steadfastness” is used in 2:7 which was considered a Christian virtue by the Early Church. In addition, Paul actually speaks of the “gospel” and how each and every person will be judged by Jesus Christ in 2:15. Finally, Paul speaks of the “circumcision of the heart” in 2:29 which is exclusively a Christian teaching! In light of the strong Christian imagery, such an explanation only creates more questions than answers.

The most persuasive answer I found was to view 3:21 as a “logical transition” rather than a temporal one. The difference between what precedes and proceeds 3:21 is not one of time (i.e. Old Covenant & New Covenant) but rather of argumentation. Paul believes that God will judge everyone by his or her works, for “God shows no partiality” (cf. 2:11). This is a problem for Paul. The problem is that the Jews have a law which they failed to obey faithfully, and the Gentles have a law (i.e. natural law) which they also failed to obey faithfully. The problem is that if God judges by works, who can be saved? This is where 3:21 comes into the picture as the argumentation moves from problem to solution, not Old Covenant to New Covenant. We will still be judged by what we do, but now Christ has come to redeem us and restore our hearts so that we will be able to live according to our own dignity, living lives of excellence if only we hold fast to the prize, Christ Jesus. This theological understanding makes sense of the many other times Paul speaks of works being necessary for salvation (cf. 1 Cor. 3.12-15; Phil. 2.12; Eph. 2.10; Gal. 5.6).

What then should we make of Rom. 3:28 when the apostle explicitly states that a man is justified by faith apart from “works of law”? The interpretive key is in the phrase ‘works of law’ (ergon nomou). Thanks to a number of non-Catholic Christian scholars such as E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright we now know that such a phrase was a technical phrase meaning something different than general ‘works.’ In fact, the verse following this cryptic phrase enlightens the reader of its technical use. In verse 29, Paul poses a mysterious question to the Roman community: “Or is God the God of the Jews only?” Paul’s inference is that if justification were by ‘works of law’ it would be exclusive to the Jews. Since justification is for both Jews and Gentiles, then it must be by faith. In other words, ‘works of law’ is not referring to all works, but rather those works that are exclusive to Judaism (i.e. circumcision, kosher laws, etc.). Thus, St. Paul is not saying a person is justified by faith alone, but that a person is saved by faith and not by ethnic privilege (in this case Jewish). What Paul is saying is that being a member of the Jewish community does not grant immunity to God’s impartiality. God will judge everyone by works and so without Jesus Christ, no one can be saved, for He is our font of life, our source of healing and redemption.

We all can rest confidently in the wisdom of our great Church for she has and will continue to keep the truths of our Lord and His inspired writers from without stain or dilution. May we all continue to increase in faith, hope and love as we set our face like flint on the magisterium of the Church for she is the face of Christ in truth, goodness, and beauty. Next time I will close this series with a cursory look at some of the other inspired writers in light of the Church’s teaching on Justification. Until then, May God be Praised!

Justifying the Doctrine of Justification: Part IV of VI

After so many weeks separating my previous column and this column, it may be wise to do a quick review of where we’ve come regarding the Catholic Church’s teaching on Justification. Of the two previous columns I’ve written we’ve come to see that justification is in fact a process by which a person is brought into a transformative covenantal relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. This divine relationship which is established, maintained, and perfected through the process of justification, is far more than a “right standing” with God as the relationship demands faithfulness to the Creator of all that is. This “faithfulness” is nothing more than a life lived according to ones own dignity. Unfortunately, the human condition has been compromised through original and personal sin leaving the individual unable to fulfill their final vocation; namely to become partakers of the divine nature (cf. 2 Ptr. 1.4). Justification, then, is the process by which one is both immediately declared and eventually transformed into the righteous person he or she was created to be thus ushering the Christian through that threshold of hope which is intimate communion with the mystery of God! Another way of saying this, although less eloquent, is that justification is by faith and charity/good works.

Mentioning the word “works” in a doctrinal context with a non-Catholic Christian can cause some undesired tension. As mentioned in a previous column, marshaling works with faith in the context of justification appears to diminish the value of Christ’s meritorious act on the cross to the non-Catholic. To the ears of the Evangelical, such a doctrine infers that one must be saved by grace received by faith along with works which occur outside the scope of grace since the person is doing it him/herself. Thus, a misunderstanding of the Catholic position ensues by creating a false dichotomy between grace and works. Such a misunderstanding can be easily corrected by looking at how faith is viewed through the lens of an Evangelical.

Thinking about the doctrine of “faith alone” may be easy enough when it is isolated from reality, but have you ever tried to think about it as it pertains to individual persons? What does it mean for an individual to be saved by faith alone? When observing the faith of others, one is quick to take notice that there is a large range of qualities to faith. Some people have unwavering faith while others have an anemic faith that borders on skepticism. The challenge for the Evangelical is to determine which faith is “saving faith.” Those who initially had faith but fell away are deemed as not having the particular faith that saves. If this is the case, what kind of faith is acceptable to God? Doesn’t Christ ask us to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect (cf. Mat 5.48; 19.21)? Doesn’t John tell us that nothing unclean will enter into heaven whether in thought or deed (cf. Rev. 21.27)? Clearly perfection is God’s standard for He cannot deny Himself. If that is the case, then no man can be saved since no one has perfect faith. The answer to this riddle is in the fact that man is saved by grace alone, which means that man’s feeble faith is accepted, sustained, and perfected through grace. What Evangelicals understand about the relationship between faith and grace, Catholics understand about the relationship between faith, works, and grace. It is only through grace that both our feeble faith and works are accepted, sustained, and perfected. Both Catholics and Evangelicals agree that salvation is by grace alone. Where we begin to disagree is in how grace is administered to works as it relates to the act of justification.

In light of the justification debate, one would think that Jesus Himself would have spoken often about the necessity of faith for salvation. After all, to be a Christian is to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. Interestingly enough, when Christ teaches about the kingdom of God/Heaven He is nearly silent about the roll of faith for salvation. Rather, it will be the humble of heart and those who undergo persecution for righteousness’ sake who will enter the Kingdom of God (cf. Mat. 5:3,10). We are told that if our eye causes us to sin, it would be better to pluck it out than to live with it in hell (cf. Mk. 9:47). We are exhorted to recognize our gifts and talents and to use them for the kingdom less we risk eternal damnation (cf. Lk. 19.12-27). Christ cautions the rich not to become too attached to their material wealth if they want to live in God’s kingdom (cf. Mk. 10.23). If anything, the evangelical reader may conclude that Christ has an “exaggerated” view of works being a condition for justification. In fact, Christ takes the Old Testament laws and intensifies them, never diminishing them. While in the Old Law adultery was considered a sin, Jesus adds that even if you look at another person lustfully you have committed adultery in the heart (cf. Mat. 5:28). If Jesus is advocating a faith alone theology, He has chosen a very confusing and misleading pedagogy.

The reason why Christ spends so much time on works is because He has come to redeem the heart, the source of all moral and immoral acts (cf. Mat. 6.21-22, Mat. 15:17-20). Christ has redeemed us in His blood and has called us to live in his redemption so that our hearts may be restored, and that we may live according to the dignity that is ours in Christ. The law has been intensified not to condemn us, but to call us to excellence. This excellence is only achieved through a life in submission to Christ our Lord. Thus, salvation is ours if only we continue to strive in saying ‘yes’ in faith to Christ and His Church, and ‘yes’ in the transformative power of the Holy Spirit which affords us the opportunity to live out our dignity in holiness/good works. Both are necessary for salvation for both are gifts from God in which we will be held accountable for.

Next week we will turn to St. Paul who speaks of faith much more often than Jesus. Paul is considered the chief defender of “faith alone” so it is with all the more importance that we spend a fair amount of time exploring his writing and his understanding of justification. Until then, may we continue to strive for excellence through the transformative power of the Holy Spirit so becoming one with the mystery of God who is love itself. May God be Praised!

Justifying The Doctrine of Justification: Part III of VI

One of the most striking differences between Catholics and Protestants regarding the doctrine of justification is over the terms “imputed” and “infused” righteousness. The Protestant is adamant in believing that righteousness/justification is something foreign to the individual, something other than the believer. In other words, the believer never becomes righteous but rather receives Christ’s righteousness. This is why they call it “imputed” righteousness. Martin Luther gave a rather crude but effective illustration by comparing the sinner to a dung-heap. When the sinner repents, he or she remains a dung-heap through-and-through but what distinguishes the Christian from the non-Christian is that the believer has a white coat of snow over them. This white coat of snow represents Christ’s righteousness that “cloaks” the sinner.

Catholics, on the other hand, take a different theological approach to justification. Continuing Luther’s illustration, the Catholic doctrine can be likened to the sinner being a heap of pure snow that has been covered by a layer of dung. Sin has compromised his or her original innocence but has not annihilated it. The act of justification is the act of Christ’s merits slowly removing the dung from the snow, making the indivdual pure white again. Thus, we see here that justification becomes more of an “infused” righteousness as the very act transforms who we are as a person, albeit over time.

If you have been following my previous columns on justification, you will immediately notice that this interpretation fits seamlessly with Scripture’s teaching on justification as a process.This does not mean that during this process we are only half-justified. Through baptism we are fully justified. However, sin inevitably creeps into the picture which threatens our relationship with God (like any relationship). We must continually surrender to the power of the cross through repentance whereby we receive the grace to become who we were created to be: partakers of the divine nature (cf. 2 Ptr. 1.4).

Another way to perceive the fundamental difference between Catholic and Protestant theology regarding justification is by likening the Protestant conception of justification to a law-court scene and to likening the Catholic conception of justification to a family-room scene. For the Protestant, being righteous means standing before the divine law-court and to be declared free from all crime. For the Catholic, being righteous means to be adopted into the divine family of God and to live a life that is in accord with such dignity which is only done through grace. One view perceives God as the gracious Judge while the other perceives God as the loving Father.While admitting this is an over-simplification, the analogy still retains its overall distinctive accuracy.

One of the main reasons why Protestants rebel against any notion of infused righteousness is that they believe it diminishes the efficacy of grace by making good works necessary for salvation along with grace. This is simply an error in thinking. While good works are necessary for salvation (i.e. becoming righteous), such good works are grounded in grace for we can do nothing good outside of this grace. I will discuss more about the relationship between faith and works in grace in my next column. For now, it is enough to see that the Protestant belief in imputed righteousness does not make sense of Scripture’s teaching on justification as a process, for an imputed righteousness has no room for process as it is instantaneous.

We must now turn briefly to St. Paul to provide evidence of infused righteousness. The best example comes from Paul’s letter to the Romans. Chapter five of the epistle focuses on contrasting the disobedience of Adam, leading to the condemnation of the world, to the obedience of Jesus which offered salvation to the world. Amidst this contrast, Paul speaks of the righteousness of God which is for all believers, but he does so in a somewhat puzzling way. In verse 18, the Apostle speaks of this righteousness as being the Christian’s acquittal from condemnation. At this moment, it appears as of the Protestant has the advantage as this is clearly law-court language. On the other hand, the very next verse appears to counter this particular notion by mentioning that what he means by this is that in the same way that all descendants of Adam were made sinners through Adam’s disobedience, all believers in Christ are in the same way made righteous through Christ’s obedience. Here we see the Catholic position come alive as Paul stresses the transformative power of God’s righteousness along with the declarative dimension of righteousness.

Confusion may abound for the reader at the moment as how could Paul advocate a declarative and a transformative righteousness at the same time? Are they not mutually exclusive realities? Either righteousness is imputed or infused but it cannot be both, right? For man, yes but for God, no. To see this we must turn to Isaiah 55:10-11. Isaiah is speaking to an Israel that believes God has forgotten His promises of the covenant. To that doubt, God says ““For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (italics mine). In other words, that which God speaks infallibly comes to completion. Thus, when God declares someone righteous that declaration will be made manifest in the person without remainder. This is why Paul can intermix both imputed and infused terminology because both result in the same end: a person who becomes righteous.

Once again, it is good to be Catholic! How thankful we should be for Christ’s fulfilled promises that His Church would never fall into error regarding the truths of Jesus Christ. My next column will address the relationship between faith and works in light of grace as expressed in the Gospels and the Pauline corpus. Until then, May God be Praised!

Justifying The Doctrine of Justification: Part II of VI

I’m confident that many of us have come across the phrase “once saved always saved” in dialogue with our non-Catholic Christian friends. Behind this denominational mantra is the belief that justification is a one-time event. As a Protestant or Evangelical, justification is by faith alone. This faith is a recognition and belief of who Jesus Christ is as both God and redeemer. Once the seeker acknowledges personal sinfulness and the necessity of Jesus Christ for salvation, one is saved. This happens at a particular moment in time, which is the answer to the common question, “When were you saved/born again?” The Christian rests on the “assurance” of his/her salvation in this particular moment in life. It is this one proclamation of faith that justifies the individual forever requiring no need to speak of a present or future justification/salvation. The Christian was saved on such-and-such day and this one moment irrevocably carries him/her till death where heaven becomes the reward of that particular day of surrender. For those individuals who initially claim faith in Jesus Christ while later on defecting, the non-Catholic Christian is said to never have had faith (i.e. “saving faith”) to begin with so he/she was never actually saved. After all, once one is saved, that salvation is forever according to non-Catholic Christian theology.

As Catholics, we believe something different. Justification is not a one-time event but a process. Viewing justification as a process flows from the belief that while faith is indispensable (and the foundation) for justification, faith is never alone as it must be accompanied by charity/good works. From personal experience, it is evident that while faith may happen instantaneously, a life defined by good works takes a lifetime to achieve. In other words, while both Catholics and non-Catholics believe good works flow from faith, Catholics make evident in their theology that such works do not flow automatically. Since good works, while associated with faith, do not infallibly flow from faith, God takes them into account regarding justification along with faith. Thus, justification is a process. I was originally justified as an infant through baptism, I am currently being justified now through grace, and I hope to be justified at the end of my life.

The New Testament’s reflection on the spiritual life of Abraham expresses the truth of the Catholic Church’s position on justification. Both Catholics and non-Catholics alike look to St. Paul’s letter to the Romans for the identification of Abraham’s moment of justification in the eyes of God. The thrust of St. Paul’s argument in chapter four of Romans is in the recalling of God’s act of justification toward Abraham which happens in Genesis 15 before Abraham is circumcised, thus showing the lack of necessity of circumcision for salvation. While this passage alone does nothing to either support or deny both the Catholic and non-Catholic position, two other reflections from the New Testament Canon quickly turn the theological tide toward the Catholic understanding.

The Letter of James appears to provide a different part of Abraham’s life for God’s moment of justification. According to the author of this letter, Abraham is justified not in Genesis 15, but rather Genesis 22 when Abraham remained obedient to God by offering his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God (cf. Jms. 2.21). It was Abraham’s “work” that justified him at this particular moment. Many non-Catholics will explain this passage away by saying that the author was not saying Abraham was actually “justified” but rather “vindicated” since the Greek word can have that connotation at times. Abraham simply confirmed the reality of his past justification by his obedience to God even to the point of offering his only son as a sacrifice. While such an explanation is possible, context shows that it is in no way possible for this particular passage. Three verses later the inspired writer compares Abraham’s justification to another historical character’s moment of justification. Apparently, in the same way Abraham was justified Rahab was also justified (cf. Jms 2.25)! This leaves no room for Abraham’s justification in Genesis 22 to be anything other than pure justification. Rahab was a prostitute who helped Israel spy on the military in Jericho without being caught, and through her assistance God justified/saved her (cf. Josh 2.1-21). Thus, we have two accounts of Abraham being justified by God. The Protestant/Evangelical position has already become untenable through the lens of Scripture.

If these examples were not enough, the author of Hebrews also weighs in on the moment Abraham was justified and it is neither Genesis 15 nor 22 but rather chapter 12 (cf. Heb. 11.8). We read that it was “by faith” that Abraham initially obeyed God when he was called out of his comfortable living environment to set out for a land some mysterious God had promised him. Anyone with an ounce of understanding of Abraham’s circumstances must agree with the author of Hebrews that Abraham was justified at this moment. If a faith resulting in leaving family, friends, employment, and security for an unknown territory that had been promised by a then unknown God could not lead to justification then many of us who have left significantly less for God in Whom we know much more about is in eternal trouble!

The idea of justification being a one-time event is foreign to Scripture and so it is foreign to the Catholic faith. In the same way Abraham was justified, we too are justified. Justification is a life long “yes” to God by which we surrender with grace not only our minds but everything we are and do, and we will be held responsible for what we do and say. This is precisely why St. Paul calls us to stand firm in our faith (cf. Php. 4.2) and why the author of Hebrews exhorts us not to throw away our confidence (cf. Heb. 10.35). Justification is not a one-time event so it can also be lost during the process. Next time we will explore how this process informs the material of justification. If it is a process as Scripture proclaims then it means that justification results in an actual change in the person which the Catholic Church calls “infused righteousness.” Until then, May God be Praised!

Justifying The Doctrine of Justification: Part I of VI

The theological relationship between faith and works is a divisive topic within Christianity. While other issues such as papal authority, Marian devotion, and prayers to the saints attract negative attention among non-Catholic Christians, nothing compares to the passion and zeal undergirding a theology of justification.

The great irony in the divisiveness of this doctrine exists in the fact that Christ’s message of salvation was intended to unite all of the nations under the one Lord, Jesus Christ. Israel’s covenant with God was no longer to be exclusive to Israel but rather the time had come for Israel to be what she was destined to be: a light to the nations and a means for universal salvation through the long awaited Messiah, Jesus Christ. Thus, it is with all the more sadness that we must acknowledge that humanity’s sinfulness has twisted that which was intended to unify to that which now factions Christ’s church into more than 30,000 denominations.

Luther himself acknowledged that the doctrine of justification would be the pillar by which the Church stood or fell. In a very real sense we must acknowledge that we have fallen. Such factions do more to dissuade the seeker of faith than to persuade. Countless are the times I’ve spoken with non-believers who simply could not believe the truth of Christianity since there were thousands of Christians all proclaiming a different “truth.” If we desire to make the Christian faith contagious, we must strive for Christian unity. If we want to achieve Christian unity with our non-Catholic brothers and sisters then we must equip ourselves with the tools necessary to unify all Christians in their understanding of Christ’s saving mission, which is expressed most concretely in the doctrine of justification.

Since Justification is intimately entwined with the work of Jesus Christ, one most proceed delicately with this doctrine. Any explicit ignorance or casual treatment of the doctrine will be interpreted as ignorance of the Gospel and looked upon as trivializing the very mission of Jesus Christ by a faithful Christian. In other words, such a thing is not taken lightly by any devout Christian. In light of such intense treatment to the doctrine, it is no wonder so many non-Catholic Christians vehemently oppose the Roman Catholic view of justification by faith and works. The Protestant’s objection often goes something like this: The Roman Catholic view of justification deems Christ’s merits on the cross insufficient for salvation. They believe they must do good works in addition to the grace they receive from faith. This means that Catholics believe the cross only partially saves, and that works must be added to grace for salvation.

While the Protestant’s objections are noble in that they defend the soteriological/salvific value of Christ’s death on the cross, in my opinion they are nevertheless a gross misrepresentation of Catholic theology and thus the truth. To begin, such an objection creates a false dichotomy between works and grace. Roman Catholicism does not believe salvation by “grace alone” necessitates a salvation by “faith alone.” Both Catholics and Protestants agree that salvation is by grace alone, but this agreement comes to an abrupt halt when Protestants reduce salvation to a faith alone concept.

Those who know me well know that I have a particular fondness toward this doctrine. Justification is the doctrine that ripped me away from my Catholic faith, but it is also the doctrine that brought me back into solidarity with my Catholic heritage two years later. In hope to offer a foundational—yet far from exhaustive—understanding of the Church’s doctrine of justification, I will be writing five additional columns that will address this beautiful and very complex doctrine. The next column will correct the Protestant error in thinking that Justification is a one-time event as opposed to the Catholic position that Justification is in fact a process. The third column will build upon the second by correcting the Protestant error in thinking that Justification is simply a declaration of righteousness, and show how the Catholic position is the most reasonable and biblical as it professes a Justification that is more than declarative; that it is a transformative event that actually makes the believer righteous rather that just declaring the believer righteous. The final three columns will examine the particular doctrine of justification by faith and works through the words of Jesus, the words of St. Paul, and from the epistle of James in that order.

Purging Misconceptions of Purgatory, Part III: Indulgences

The topic of indulgences is an incredibly complicated subject to speak of due to the nearly countless distortions having evolved over the years regarding this doctrine.Furthermore, restricting my type-space (originally printed in church bulletin) to one page only makes this challenge more, well, challenging! Nonetheless, I believe this article will help clear up misconceptions, display the logical structure, and illustrate the biblical foundations of indulgences rather convincingly.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints” (CCC, 1427; emphasis mine). In other words, an indulgence can be likened to a child who inadvertently or deliberately throws a baseball through a neighbor’s window. The neighbor may very well forgive the child, restoring the relationship to its original status, but that does not change the fact that a window is in pieces. The temporal effects of the transgression remains and must be fixed. The child may have to dip into his allowance to restore the window.However, the father or mother may step in and pay for the broken window on behalf of their son. This is where the analogy of indulgences comes into focus. While it would have been fine for the child to pay for the window, the family stepped in graciously to fix the window on behalf of their child. In the case of indulgences, the child is you and I, and the gracious family is the Church: the family of God!

At this point in the discussion with a non-Catholic many objections would begin to manifest themselves in the form of questions: 1) Where is eternal punishment and temporal punishment distinguished in the Bible? 2) Doesn’t such a doctrine diminish the merits of Christ? 3) If Christ’s merits are sufficient then why add the inadequate “merits” of saints to the “treasury of merits”? 4) Where does Scripture give authority to the Church to give such indulgences? Many of these questions may seem cryptic to you, but they will become clearer as they are addressed.

The distinction between temporal and eternal punishment begins at the very beginning of time.Due to Adam and Eve’s disobedience, they lost their relationship with God (i.e. their eternal reward) and they received temporal punishments befitting their crime (cf. Gen. 3: 16-19): Eve was to experience the pangs of childbirth, and Adam was to work tirelessly with little reward.This example from Scripture illustrates the fact that being eternally redeemed in Christ does not necessarily remove the temporal punishment that accompanied the crime. While I know many married women who have been baptized, their childbearing has been far from painless! Another great example is the story of David being caught in adultery. While his sins were forgiven, God still punished David for his actions through the death of the child from adultery (cf. 2 Sam. 12.7-12). There is a clear distinction between eternal and temporal punishment in Scripture, and there is clear Scriptural support that such temporal punishments may remain after forgiveness/redemption.

From this quick reflection of Scripture we can begin to see why indulgences do not diminish the merits of Christ. Indulgences have nothing to do with eternal punishment and reward, for that is Christ’s victory! Scripture is clear that temporal punishment may remain after forgiveness which often times comes in the form of a continued distorted desire to commit the transgression again (i.e. pornography, masturbation, premarital/extramarital sex, etc.). It is in God’s loving kindness that such a disciplinary action is given us. We do not discipline a child for punishment’s sake, but so that the child may know the gravity of his offense, and so that his will may be strengthened not to commit it again. So it is with God!

The third question ought to be broken into a number of sub-questions but space limits such a desire. We know that the cross of Christ was more than sufficient for our salvation. Thus, rather than diminishing the merits of Christ, the belief in indulgences actually magnifies our Lord’s salvific act by acknowledging its “benefits” well beyond our own eternal salvation. This truth is what is behind the Church’s teaching of the “treasury of merits.” The work of the cross was not something that was barely efficacious enough to squeeze us into heaven. Rather, the cross was and is overflowing with graces beyond our salvation. These graces are not wasted but are entrusted to the Church to be distributed to those who may need it. These graces are dispensed in the form of indulgences.

All this being said, we are still not any closer in our understanding of why our own merits would be considered as contributing to the treasury of merits if Christ’s merits are enough. In the same way our imperfect faith is made perfect through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, so to are our imperfect works made perfect by the perfect work of Jesus Christ. These imperfect works of ours are united to the perfect work of Christ to be used for the good of others. In other words, our God ensures that everything we do and everything we are is supernaturalized so that it may be used as a gift for another! What a beautiful reality!

St. Paul articulates this truth quite profoundly in his letter to the Colossians: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, this is, the church…” (Col. 1.24). The Apostle uses language that is much more shocking than anything the Catholic Church has ever articulated. What St. Paul acknowledges is the fact that there are many things that we undergo in life that may not be necessary for our own salvation but are beautiful things nonetheless. Our God does not allow them to be wasted but rather unites them to the merits of the Cross for the sake of the kingdom. What a great God who both saves us and allows us to participate in His mission of salvation not by necessity, but out of His loving kindness and His desire to be close to us!

I am reminded of a childhood experience of my youth that may help make since of why God would bring our own works of charity into the equation if they are not necessary. My father took me with him to work when I was a child so I could see what he did. Looking back, I think this may have been one of the highlights of my youth. I remember sitting in his desk pretending I was him, and helping him with his work which in hindsight only made his day longer. I know my father could have done his work much more efficiently without me since he clearly did not need me, but he allowed me to be a part of his day because he loved me. I can only imagine how many corrections had to be made by my father so as to perfect my small little works. My father never looked down at me for my “imperfect performance” nor did he ever think I was a threat to his position or stealing his “glory.” Rather, he affirmed me in all the little things I did not because I did them, but because of the love behind them. So it is with our heavenly Father! God has given us the opportunity to “work” with Him to build His kingdom not out of necessity but simply out of love for us and because of his desire to have a relationship with us!

A serious question still remains: Who gave the authority to the Church to be the dispenser of this treasury of merits? The answer is quite simple: Jesus Christ. Jesus handed over His own authority in a unique way to St. Peter who was the first pope (cf. Mat. 16.13-20). Christ made St. Peter the new ambassador to the New Israel which was and is the Church. While the ambassador of the Old Testament governed the treasury among other responsibilities in the Old Covenant, it is now St. Peter and his successors who govern the new treasury of the New Covenant, which is spiritual rather than physical! For a more thorough explanation of the Church’s authority, I refer you to my column entitled, “Why I am Catholic".

In the end, a belief in indulgences simply confesses the nature of our faith, which is familial! We are the family of God that is rich in mercy and full of compassion. God disciplines us for our actions because he loves us and He also showers his mercy upon us in that very discipline through indulgences which has for its source the cross of Jesus Christ. The Church has been given that honor and responsibility to be the distributer of such gifts. It is up to the receiver to receive them with genuine hearts, repentant hearts, and faith-filled hearts that are restless until they rest completely and unconditionally with God, for grace is received according to the capacity one is able to receive it. The gift of an indulgence is not a free ticket but rather an invitation to reexamine our lives in light of Jesus Christ, and to seek Him more faithfully than we had in the past. I encourage each of you this week to look up the types of indulgences the Church has to offer and take advantage of such a great gift! May God be Praised!

Purging Misconceptions of Purgatory, Part II: Historical Continuity

As the title mentions, this is an unanticipated continuation of my column I wrote over a month ago on the biblical and logical foundation of the Church’s doctrine on purgatory. The desire to continue writing on this subject came from two events: 1) The fact that many people enjoyed the column; 2) A Lutheran minister had read it and said it was the most persuasive thing he had read on the topic of purgatory. Before you begin thinking you may see him in this year’s RCIA class, he did qualify the statement by saying he still doesn’t believe the doctrine. With that, I would like to continue the apologetic crusade—filled with charity—and address a couple more points that will further solidify the veracity of the Church’s wisdom in upholding this doctrine in spite of criticisms.

While the theological necessity of purgatory appears to be undeniable and the biblical evidence persuasive, the overall argument is still incomplete. The best way to validate a biblical truth claim is by looking for historical evidence that would confirm the particular interpretation of Scripture at hand. In other words, is there a line of continuity between the Church’s belief in purgatory and the belief of the Early Church? The answer appears to be a resounding yes!

One of the most persuasive texts comes from the middle of the second century (c. AD 160) in a Christian apocryphal work called The Acts of Paul and Thecla. Whether or not the story in this writing is historical is not important since the value of this work is in the story itself. Like every story or book whether fiction or non-fiction, the surrounding worldview informs the norms and practices of the narrative. In the story of Paul and Thecla, the deceased daughter of Trifina appears to Trifina in a dream. The daughter requests that Trifina take Thecla as her new daughter in place of the deceased daughter. When given the reason, the daughter says it is so “that she [Thecla] should pray for me, that I may be transferred to the place of righteousness” (ANF VIII: 490, brackets mine). Notice that there is never an explanation of this request on behalf of the deceased daughter as if this was some foreign custom being added to the narrative. Praying for the deceased had become so common by the mid-second century that it found its way into story telling. In other words, the practical elements of purgatory were being expressed without apology less than a century before Christianity was recognized as a separate religion from that of Judaism!

Story telling is not the only historical manifestation of a belief in purgatory by the Early Church. Archaeology has discovered burial stones with epitaphs that request prayers for the deceased. One such epitaph is by a man by the name of Abercius who after expressing a love for his Christian faith, requests that “everyone who is in accord with this [the Christian faith] and who understands it pray for Abercius” (Epitaph of Abercius, c. AD 190, brackets mine). Again, the customs and practices of the Early Church express an understanding of and belief in purgatory.

Yet another dimension of the historical record that has archived an image of the Early Church adhering closely to the image of the Catholic Church today is the written accounts of Christian martyrs. One such story articulates a vision of Perpetua’s blood brother who apparently died from disease. The sister received a vision of her brother being purified through fire after death and, with the help if her prayers, seeing him eventually purified for his eternal reward (cf. ANF III: 701-02, c. AD 202).

In the end, an entire monograph could be dedicated to an analysis of all the Early Church Fathers who explicitly spoke about the doctrine of purgatory whether that be through Origin’s commentary on 1 Cor. 3, or Tertullian’s interpretation of Mat. 5:25-26 (cf. Homilies of Jeremias [c. AD 244] & ANF III: 234-5 [c. AD 210]. The fathers of the Church are overwhelmingly in favor of the doctrine of purgatory and in light of such company—which only confirms the previous columns attempt to express purgatory’s biblical foundation and theological necessity—a sense of arrogance is almost needed to outright reject the doctrine without question. If the Judaism of Christ’s day believed in a form of it, the biblical text spoke of it, heaven needs it, and the Early Church practiced and preached it, then it would appear as if this doctrine is not up for dissenting.

I mentioned at the beginning of this column that my intention was to address a “couple” more points about purgatory, but I have only mentioned one additional point being the continuity of the Early Church Fathers. My next column will address the question about indulgences. Is it possible that while the Church got the doctrine of purgatory correct, she erred with the dispensation of indulgences? Stay tuned…

Purging Misconceptions of Purgatory

Dealing with a non-Catholic Christian’s objections to the Church’s doctrine of purgatory can be incredibly intimidating. The average Evangelical or Protestant is well versed in Scripture which can present a formidable challenge to the average Catholic who is typically not as well versed in the details of Scripture. While we may be quick to speak of scriptural stories, the scriptural precision of the non-Catholic appears to override the Catholic’s own Scriptural acumen pressuring the faithful Catholic to back away from the sacred text and turn to the rather impotent phrase, “Well, that is what we believe!” Such a response only vindicates the non-Catholic’s belief that the Catholic Church is deeply erroneous in doctrine AND that she is “clearly” anti-Scriptural. While both beliefs are unequivocally false, one can sympathize with the non-Catholic in light of the Catholic’s lack of intellectual ability to answer objections to their faith.

How easy it is for each of us to conclude something about an organization simply based upon a nearly universal observation about each of its members. If we want to heal the rift that was created by the Protestant Reformation, if we want peace, if we want justice, if we want Jesus Christ to be visibly and powerfully manifested in this world then the buck begins and ends with each one of us in a sense. While ultimately peace, salvation and reconciliation come from Jesus Christ, it is in God’s loving will that He asks us to participate in this mission (cf. Mt. 28.18-20). In light of this truth, we are being asked by God to love Him with our entire mind (cf. Mat. 22.37) so it is our duty and privilege to prepare ourselves to be able to give a defense for what we believe (cf. 1 Ptr. 3.15). To this end, let us examine and critique the objections to the Church’s teaching on purgatory.

The two common objections made by non-Catholic Christians are that the doctrine is nowhere found in Sacred Scripture and that the concept of purgatory makes a mockery of the of cross since the belief implies a second safety net for salvation which lay outside the meritorious act of Jesus Christ. In other words, the accusation being made is that purgatory implicitly states that Jesus Christ was not sufficient for salvation and so purgatory exists for the sake of the deficiencies in Christ. The second objection is a strong accusation which explains the hostility many non-Catholic Christians have toward purgatory; their hostility comes from a deep love for Jesus Christ and what He has done. Fortunately, the accusation is entirely wrong and based upon distortions of the Church’s teaching.

To begin, the Church teaches that Jesus Christ is the sole mediator for salvation (for the distinction between Christ's role as mediator for salvation and the Christian's role as mediator of salvation, see article on intercession of the saints). Purgatory is not a second chance for salvation because it is exists exclusively for those who have already been saved in the blood of Jesus Christ. At this point, purgatory may appear to be a superfluous teaching. After all, if we are already saved, what is the need for purgatory? The answer to this question articulates the necessity of this teaching! In fact, whether one believes in imputed or infused righteousness the logical and theological necessity of purgatory still holds.

For the sake of the argument, let us say that justification is simply through declaration (cf. God says you are righteous but it doesn’t mean you actually are). This is different from Catholic theology which states that justification is both declarative and transformative (cf. Rom. 5.19). If life lived in justification on earth is one of declaration but not necessarily transformation, what then about heaven? Is heaven simply an eternal life of “declaration” not necessarily tied to transformation? Of course not! Heaven is not a place where fornicators continue to fornicate or even feel tempted to fornicate while simply being declared righteous. Nothing unclean can ever enter into heaven whether that is in thought or deed (cf. Rev. 21.27). If I were to die today, while being fully redeemed in the blood of Christ, I would die with a tendency toward sinful desires which often times concretize in the form of selfishness. What is God to do with a dead man redeemed in Christ yet not perfectly virtuous which is the exclusive criteria for a life lived in heaven? Purgatory is a logical necessity if we are to understand heaven as that which is completely free from sin, the direct beatific vision of God. For the overwhelming majority of us, purgatory serves as a state of loving purification for those who have been saved in Jesus Christ. We are sanctified and made perfectly holy in purgatory through the blood of Christ so that we may enter into the marriage banquet in heaven without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph. 5.25-27).

After having understood purgatory’s theological and logical necessity, and recognizing purgatory’s intrinsic relationship to Christ’s meritorious act rather than seeing it as something outside or in addition to the cross, what does Scripture have to say about this teaching? While Scripture never explicitly mentions the world purgatory (which simply means “a place of purification”), there are a number of passages that speak of a state of purification after death. This should be no cause for concern as there are many things that both Catholics and non-Catholics alike believe in that are not explicitly stated in Scripture (i.e. hypostatic union of Christ, divinity of Christ, Trinity, Infant Baptism, etc).

One of the clearest attestations of purgatory in Scripture can be found in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. In chapter three of his letter, St. Paul speaks about a day of judgment which has a particular three pronged judgment. There are those whose works will be tested and be seen as worthy of a reward which contextually refers to heaven (cf. 1 Cor. 3.14). On the other hand, there are those whose works are destructive and so are worthy of damnation (cf. 1 Cor. 3.16-17). However, there is a third peculiar judgment where a person’s works are judged and neither found to be universally accepted nor condemned. This person’s bad works will be “burned up” and “will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor. 3.15). St. Paul’s explanation fits very well with the Church’s teaching on purgatory as a state of purification for those who have been saved in the blood of Christ yet must undergo a cleansing from the residual effects of sin.

We also know that Judaism believed in a type of purgatory which urged them to pray for their fellow dead (cf. 2 Macc. 12.46). This places the Church’s teaching in integrity with the teachings of God’s chosen people of the Old Covenant. This is all the more important when we understand that the New Covenant did not come to abolish the Old Covenant, but to fulfill it (cf. Mat. 5.17)! Finally, Christ Himself appears to allude to a sense of purification in the life to come (cf. Mat. 5.25-26; 12:31-32).

This is clearly far from an exhaustive treatment of the Church’s teaching on purgatory, but I pray it has better equipped you to be able to give a defense for the love you have for Christ and His Church! May you love Him more with all your soul, body, strength, and mind. May God be Praised!

"This" Is Why I Believe In The Real Presence

I am incredibly grateful for my education at an evangelical seminary. The nearly continuous faith-challenging questions posed by both faculty and fellow students only strengthened my Roman Catholic convictions. However, one particular objection to a Roman Catholic doctrine, presented by a professor I deeply admired (and still do), affected me quite significantly, and drove me to search diligently for an answer.

The real presence of our Lord in the most holy Eucharist is a unique doctrine of the Roman Catholic faith. When such a truth is challenged, the Catholic feels compelled to defend such skepticism with ferocity. This is how I felt when my professor challenged this doctrine in my first class at the evangelical seminary. His two main arguments (at least presented in class) consisted of one assumption and one critique based on language. The assumption was that no one would have imagined our Lord claiming the bread and wine to be his actual body. Not only does this beg the question, but such a skeptical assessment contains a further assumption that Jesus would have only said things that could be clearly understood by others. From a cursory reading of the Gospels, we see that such an understanding is far from accurate.

The second argument presented by my professor was an argument from language. Jesus likely spoke Aramaic. So a phrase like “This is my body” could not have been said since Aramaic did not use “to be” verbs (e.g. is, was, were, etc.). The inference to this argument is that the Greek writing authors of the Gospels inserted an ‘is’ so as to not go beyond Christ’s own words yet maintaining proper Greek grammar. In other words, the ‘is” in the phrase “This is my body” is a deliberate generic verb which functions simply to fill the lack of a verb from the original Aramaic quotation. Thus, Roman Catholics—according to my professor—have gone beyond the scope of the text with their “transubstantiation” theology.

Despite my profound admiration for this professor, I vehemently disagree with his rather sophisticated argument. While it may be true that Jesus did speak in Aramaic, such an argument is an argument from silence. A more powerful argument comes from a close examination of the Greek texts to see if the author, guided by the Holy Spirit, left any clues to what Jesus might have meant when we said “This [no verb] my body” in Aramaic. When such an examination is done, we find an answer that confirms the validity of our Catholic faith and gives the believer goose-bumps.

Those of you who have studied a language like Spanish know that words can have genders. While both Amigo and Amiga share the same basic structure (the stem), the ‘o’ and ‘a’ at the end of the word give it its gender (the first being masculine and the later being feminine). Greek is very similar in that many words may look nearly identical with only a minor change being due to gender differences. One such example is the demonstrative pronoun (e.g. this/these, that/those). In Greek, you can find the word “this” in feminine, masculine, and even neuter forms. The gender of the pronoun is chosen by what it is referring to (i.e. the antecedent). If Joe asks Sally, “Can you hand me my book?” and Sally responds, “Is this your book?” Sally’s “this” obviously refers to “book.” In Greek, “book” has a gender (feminine) so “this” would also have share the same gender as the word book. Enough with Greek grammar and on to the good stuff!

From Scripture we know that when Jesus picked up the bread from the table and said, “This is my body” the ‘this’ was referring to the bread He was holding up. In Greek, ‘bread’ has a Gender (like all nouns) and it is masculine. Thus, we ought to conclude that the ‘this’ that Jesus speaks is also masculine in gender since it is referring to the bread. But wait, it is not masculine at all but rather neuter in gender. Have all three Gospels committed a grammatical blunder? By no means! If only we had the eyes to see (Greek in this case) the reason why all Last Supper accounts record such a grammatical faux pas. We already mentioned that the Greek word ‘bread’ is masculine but we have not yet made explicit what the other critical noun’s gender is, and that would be ‘body’ which is neuter!

Tying all the loose ends together, we must ask why all the Gospel writers took the liberty to make Christ’s “this” in the phrase “This is my body” neuter in gender when it is clear that the ‘this’ is referring to the masculine in gender bread which he is holding up to his apostles. The answer is quite clear to the Catholic. By the time our Lord and savior raised the sacred bread from the table, the bread had changed into the body (and blood) of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the grammatical gender-change from masculine to neuter conveys! The bread is no longer simply bread but now has taken on the grammatical gender of the body which communicates to the reader the breads substantial change into the body of our Lord! The Gospel writers, guided by the Holy Spirit, could not have been any more explicit regarding the Real Presence of our Lord in the bread and wine consecrated by our faithful priests! Thus, the ‘is’ in Christ’s phrase “This is my body” is not some verb to be disputed, but rather a powerful lens into the Real Presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist.

Saying all of this, it would be unfair of me to ignore the common non-Catholic objection to this “demonstrative” argument which favors a Real Presence understanding of the Last Supper passages. Due to the intricate and complexity of this rebuttal, I will only deal with its most “deadly blow” to what I have just argued above. For those wanting a more exhaustive treatment of the non-Catholic perspective, I refer you to Robert Sungenis’s article.

It is true that there are a small number of passages that share the grammatical structure of the Last Supper passages. Both Matthew 13.38 and Luke 8.14 contain a demonstrative pronoun followed by a ‘to be’ verb and ending with a noun or noun equivalent. While the pronoun ought to be taking on the gender of its antecedent, it actually takes on the gender of the substantive following the verb. In the case of Mt. 13.38, the ‘these’ in “these good seeds” takes on the gender of “kingdom” rather than “seeds.” The non-Catholic claims victory in that this appears to be a clear attestation that such a grammatical usage does in fact point to a metaphor.

However, on closer inspection the weight of this objection collapses (along with every other similar example by the non-Catholic interlocutor). Both Mt. 13.38 and Lk. 8.14 are explanations of parables by Jesus which had just been presented. The actual metaphoric usage was in the parable. Jesus is NOT explaining a metaphor (i.e. the parable) with another metaphor. We must make the distinction between metaphor and assigning identities. Coming from a computer science background, I find the best way to explain this is through the lens of mathematics. If I were to create a program based upon an algorithm, I would have two (at the minimum) separate locations of code. One would contain the actual algorithm. The algorithm section of my code would be equivalent to the metaphoric structure of Christ’s parable. I would also have a separate location whereby I would be assigning identities to all the appropriate variables. These are not simply representative variables, but they actually take on that which it symbolizes. The assignments actually imbue the variable to the fullest extent. Thus, we have the clear distinction between metaphor and the assignment of identities.

In light of what I just said, it makes all the more sense why these additional exceptions simply prove the rule. Since both Mt. 13.38 and Lk. 8.14 (and many more like these) are assigning identities, it makes sense why the demonstrative pronoun would take on the gender that follows rather than its antecedent. This grammatical rarity is conveying the message that the subsequent noun is taking on the identity of the pronoun! Again, it is good to be Catholic!

Next time you are at Mass and you hear your parish priest say the words of consecration, “This is my body” I hope you will have a greater appreciation for such a simple word as “this”, and have a deeper love for the Son of God who stands before you in the Holy Eucharist! May God be Praised!