Virgin of the Annunciation
by Guido Reni (early 17th century)

This is also a subject where Catholics and Reformed Christians find strong agreement. We both recognize the gravity of this sin. Unfortunately though, this is not the case with all churches. In high school, before my conversion through Young Life, I occasionally attended a Methodist church where there was little mention of sin, Christ, or redemption. One of my most poignant memories is a conversation between a group of other students and a member of the church staff who was defending his subscription to Playboy Magazine. He argued that the magazine honored women by showing their beauty. Stories like this should make all Christians weep, but it should also highlight the fact that Catholics and Reformed Christians are fighting the same battle.

Since coming into the Catholic Church I’ve tried to maintain relationships with my Reformed friends as best as possible. As these relationships have continued to grow I’ve also been able to form deep friendships with Catholics as well. In the context of these relationships I have been struck by the different approaches of these groups in the fight against habitual sin. For the Reformed the battle seems to be fought primarily through Bible study, accountability groups, prayer, and attentiveness to solid preaching. For the Catholics, however, the sacraments are paramount. This is not to say that Catholics do not love accountability groups, Bible study, preaching, and prayer.  When it comes to how we believe God is transforming us, however, Catholics take comfort that their Savior is healing them through the sacraments.

This is not because Catholics believe the sacraments have magical voodoo powers to cure. On the contrary, we believe that the sacraments are where we encounter Jesus Christ, and the means He established by which we are more deeply united with Him and grow in sanctification. As I reflect on my own struggles with various forms of habitual sin throughout my entire Christian life, I realize that I’ve always known what I needed. I’ve always known the answer: more of Jesus.  Union with the living Christ is the ultimate remedy for the sickness of sin. This is what Christ offers us in the sacraments: deeper union with him.

This does not mean that Catholics are more sanctified or that they necessarily sin less than Protestants. The tragedy of the recent sex scandal within the Catholic Church demonstrates this point all too well. Though certain priests were partaking of the sacraments, they were still living in a horrible pattern of habitual sin. But this is precisely why the Catholic sacraments are not magic. An unrepentant man can partake of the sacraments and still be an unrepentant man. This reality can be seen in Jesus’ own ministry. For some, an encounter with Christ meant judgment, not forgiveness and transformation. The grace offered to us in the sacraments is resistible. And the measure of grace we receive through the sacraments depends on our disposition. The greater our love for Christ, the more grace we receive from Christ through the sacraments. Conversely, those who approach the sacraments in mortal sin and without contrition, receive no grace from the sacraments.

For years I prayed that God would free me from particular habitual sins. However, I never expected this prayer to be answered in the form of the Catholic sacraments. Yet this is where Christ has met me and this is where I believe He will continue to transform me. I am speaking here from experience and am fully aware of the limited strength of an experiential argument. Nonetheless, I have to share my story. When God does something incredible it is hard not to tell others. My hope and prayer is that my own story will encourage you to continue reading Called To Communion and further consider the claims of the Catholic Church, especially as you consider your own desire to grow in holiness for Christ.

On this day, March 7, 1274, St. Thomas Aquinas fell asleep in the Lord.  In the old calendar, this was his feast day.  And so in his honor, I would like to show how St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the sacraments do not dispense the need for faith and repentance in the recipient. A recipient may place an impediment such that the sacrament does not have its effect, but this is not to say that the sacrament is not inherently efficacious.

If a sacrament was efficacious, wouldn’t that mean that it always has its effect regardless of the disposition of the recipient? No. We do not disprove the tendency of a rock to fall to the ground by catching it. We only prove that something might hinder the rock from doing what it would have otherwise accomplished. One who places an impediment in between a sacrament and his own reception is like one who stops a rock from falling.

Sacraments contain grace like words contain information. The sacrament will confer that grace upon the recipient, so long as he places no obstacle in its path, just as a word will convey information to the hearer so long as the hearer does not place an obstacle in its path (such as deliberately ignoring the word or sticking his fingers in his ears).

I have already responded once to the repeated claims that the Catholic doctrine on sacramental efficacy amounts to belief in magic. You can read that response here. But I would like to show that if one were familiar with the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, he would already know how misplaced and uninformed these sort of accusations are.

The first thing one should know about the Catholic doctrine of sacraments is that their function is to confer grace. Reformed Protestants view the few sacraments they retain as signs of, not causes of grace. God is the cause of grace, they argue. They are right that God is the cause of grace, but their doctrinal error is caused by a failure to distinguish between types of causes. God is the principal cause of grace, and the sacrament is the instrumental cause of grace.¹ Thus, to say that sacraments cause grace is not to deny that God is the origin of that grace.

Since sacraments cause grace, what is true of grace is also true of the sacrament as its cause. As St. Thomas often repeats, grace does not destroy nature but rather perfects it. This is an easy way to recognize the falsity of the Protestant caricature that Catholics view sacramental efficacy as a magical override of nature. Free will belongs to man’s nature; hence sacraments do not destroy man’s free will. Rather, sacraments confer grace which perfects man’s will. A man’s will can place an impediment to reception of the sacramental grace. For example, if a man were forcibly baptized against his will, the sacrament would not have its effect. St. Thomas says, “in order that a man be justified by Baptism, his will must needs embrace both Baptism and the baptismal effect.”²

What about forgiveness of sins? Does man have to repent or can he simply receive the sacrament of baptism, penance, or extreme unction? Many Protestants would say that the Catholic Church teaches that one must simply receive the sacraments and that one’s will to repent is not important, or at the very least, not essential. But St. Thomas says, “there is no remission of sins, even in Baptism, without an actual change of the will, which is the effect of Penance.”³ Repentance is essential to forgiveness. The sacraments do not forgive one’s sin in spite of one’s impenitence; that is impossible. Furthermore, properly speaking, forgiveness of sins is an effect of penance as a virtue. That is, forgiveness of sins is a proper result of a man repenting of his sins. The grace is conferred by penance as a sacrament, but its proper cause is the virtue of penance.⁴

According to St. Thomas, ‘“the power of the sacraments which is ordained unto the remission of sins is derived principally from faith in Christ’s Passion.”⁵ And he goes on to say:

No sin can be forgiven save by the power of Christ’s Passion: hence the Apostle says that “without shedding of blood there is no remission.”⁶ Consequently no movement of the human will suffices for the remission of sin, unless there be faith in Christ’s Passion, and the purpose of participating in it, either by receiving Baptism, or by submitting to the keys of the Church. Therefore when an adult approaches Baptism, he does indeed receive the forgiveness of all his sins through his purpose of being baptized, but more perfectly through the actual reception of Baptism.⁷

We have seen that according to Catholic doctrine, repentance is necessary for forgiveness of sins and that man may freely reject the graces offered to him in the sacrament. As stated above, faith is also necessary. St. Thomas also says that, “she [the Church] does not intend to give Baptism save to those who have right faith, without which there is no remission of sins.”⁸ Thus faith, repentance, and assent are all necessary components of receiving sacramental grace.⁹ As with other issues of contention, the sandy ground on which the Protestant objection was built washes away once we examine the authentic Catholic doctrine.

St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us that we might be able to better understand the mysteries of the sacraments and more so that we would often avail ourselves to them and be found worthy recipients of the grace that they confer unto salvation.  Amen.

1. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 3.62.4
2. Ibid., 3.69.9
3. Ibid., 3.86.2
4. Ibid., 3.86.6
5. Ibid., 3.62.5
6. Hebrews 9:22
7. Ibid., 3.69.1
8. Ibid., 3.68.8
9. This applies even to children because these things which they are not able to produce are produced by the Church. Thus in child baptism, the Church believes, wills, and repents on his behalf.

Since as we have learned from your report, it sometimes happens because of the scarcity of water, that infants of your lands are baptized in beer, we reply to you in the tenor of those present that, since according to evangelical doctrine it is necessary “to be reborn from water and the Holy Ghost” (John III:5) they are not to be considered rightly baptized who are baptized in beer.

Shortly thereafter the fraternity was disbanded and the seminarians were ordered to brew tea instead.

Well we’ve been told we needed some more humor on CTC so there it is.  This does, however, lead into a more serious point regarding the sacraments.   All sacraments have both form and matter.   And not just any matter, the matter must signify.  If it does not signify what it effects, it is not a sign; and since all sacraments are signs of divine grace, if it is not a sign then it is not a sacrament.

Water, not beer (sorry frat boys), was chosen for baptism because it signifies the cleansing from sin which baptism actually effects.  It could not have been beer because beer is not a sign of cleansing.   The same goes for the other sacraments: some matter, which of itself does not effect grace (water does not cleanse from sin even if you use it three times), when combined with the proper form (intention, formulae, etc.) actually effects grace because of God’s promises.  This is Catholic sacramentalism — more on that doctrine in the future…

This paradoxical statement is not for shock purposes-it is wholly and entirely true. As one who is in communion with Rome via an Eastern Catholic Church, I find this to be an inevitable conclusion. Because my home parish has its origins in the Slavic people who lived around the Carpathian mountains, I appreciate the beauty of the East, for it is a beauty that I share in my daily prayer life on a personal level and at a Church level. A good portion of those who worship at my parish are ethnically descendants of the Orthodox who regained communion with Rome. This came after excommunications and ill will were put aside in the interest of unity and through an acknowledgment of the ministry of Peter that is given to the Pope of Rome. These dear people who were brave enough to put aside bitterness and seek to regain communion have a story and it must be told, never to be forgotten. There have been many historical tragedies of Churches ransacked and seized on both sides of the Catholic/Orthodox schism, and there has been much oppression of the Eastern Catholics by ungodly Communistic governments, but to recount these events with the purpose of stirring up anger would lose the vision of Our Lord’s. This vision has sought, is seeking, and shall ever seek oneness between His children. On the other hand, to recount the vision of union and a love that transcended the hatred and differences between East and West, this is a story that is ever upon my mind.

I have many friends and acquaintances who have seen the fractured world of Protestantism and have said, “Enough!” They have left their former Protestant abode for Eastern Orthodoxy, because it is a safe haven from the opinions of men each left to interpret the Bible on their own. But to many of us who are or were Protestants, we look on the outside and see that Catholics claim Tradition, Copts claim Tradition, Eastern Orthodox claim Tradition, Armenian Orthodox claim Tradition, et cetera et cetera. It is a fact that brings me to tears, that there are successors of the Apostles who are not in full communion with one another. And we as the faithful are suffering for this disunity. The crucial question to ask is-how should we view this disunion? Are we supposed to cast our lots with the most doctrinal bishops? And if so, who are they? If that were the case, how different would our adherence to Tradition really be, in contrast to Protestantism?

Let us consider the vision of the Catholic and compare it to those Eastern Brethren who share the same ultimate episcopacy but do not share the same chalice. We know that our Churches share the view that Christ left a visible Church, with Bishops leading the charge in the same vein as the Apostles. But we know that each group has an overall different view on the status of each other. It is never redundant to restate what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about the Churches with whom she is not in communion.

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all – by apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.”238¹

One way of describing the Catholic view of holy orders is that it is an indelible mark, as Tim Troutman’s recent full length article stated. While the term “indelible” may sound medieval and mechanistic, there is a thread of understanding the sacraments in a similar way in the East as well as in the West. The Donatist controversy is one example, where the Church saw that the Donatists were too strict in demanding rebaptism of those who had fallen away. Other sources of patristic thought saw this to be the case. It evokes a stronger view of the sacraments that is ultimately objective. This objectivity is at the heart of the Christian sacramental practice, something that neither sin nor schism can erase. This view is so powerful (an atomic bomb, as my homage to Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove points out) that it transcends our lack of full communion with one another. The disagreements over primacy and jurisdictions did lead to schism, but they did not lead to a destruction of Holy Orders. This maintains the fullness of sacramental life with God in Orthodoxy, even though on a horizontal level we are fragmented from one another. It goes to the point of saying that if Church authorities were to approve of it, Orthodox could receive the Eucharist from Catholics and vice versa. Holy Orders is so powerful that it transcends the differing views on the papacy. It reminds me of a story that I was told by my godfather prior to my conversion. I quote one account of it from the New York Times:

During a frustrating argument with a Roman Catholic cardinal, Napoleon Bonaparte supposedly burst out: “Your eminence, are you not aware that I have the power to destroy the Catholic Church?” The cardinal, the anecdote goes, responded ruefully: “Your majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best to destroy the church for the last 1800 years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”

Whether this is an apocryphal story or not, this understanding of Holy Orders permeates the Catholic view both of herself and of those Churches who have not maintained communion with the Pope. It is so powerful that even those bishops who do not esteem us can ultimately be bestowed with just as much majesty and honor as we would give to our own bishops who have communion with the Pope of Rome, the first among equals. I have had the pleasure to greet Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America with a kiss on the hand, and that kiss was given with just as much fervor as I would give to a bishop with whom I am in communion. That is because I love the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox. Orthodoxy’s opposition to communion with Rome comes from circumstances both tragic and sad. But the often untold story that brings the title of this article to mind is the fact that at many points in history, Orthodoxy’s opposition to Rome has brought her to turn in on Herself. When the various and complex tragedies that led to schism between East and West unfolded, the majority of Orthodox adopted the idea that the mystery of Holy Orders is not indelible. A door was thus opened up that led to not only less love for Rome, but many times less love for Orthodoxy itself. Orthodoxy ties valid holy orders to both Apostolic Succession and Orthodoxy. This does sound like a higher standard that should lead to more purity, but what does Orthodoxy mean exactly? As you may imagine, there are varying answers to this question of what it takes to be fully Orthodox. And so, in many senses this “higher” standard actually lowers the love that one can have for the servants of God, the Bishops and those faithful in communion with them. One can end up only esteeming those bishops who are pure in one’s estimation as having the fullness of sacramental life.

A clear example of this can be seen in the life of the priest Fr. Seraphim Rose, who has fallen asleep in the Lord and is receiving the sort of veneration that could lead to an eventual canonization. Even at his conversion, we read that there was a gaping sacramental question that is still in many respects unresolved today. That is, when one enters into Tradition via Orthodoxy, if one was formerly a Protestant who was baptized as a Protestant, is rebaptism necessary? It is interesting because Fr. Seraphim was himself not baptized, having converted via Protestantism; however, his own practice was to rebaptize those who were not baptized via an Orthodox Church.

Throughout his life, Fr. Seraphim fought for what he called “true Orthodoxy”, which was in contrast to other groups–some of which (in his opinion) were too zealous for Orthodoxy and others were not zealous enough. In the case of those groups who Fr. Seraphim had wished would be more open, there was given the term “super-correct”. From his biography we read about the “super-correct”–they went so far as to call for rebaptism of canonical Orthodox believers who wanted communion with his Orthodox Jurisdiction-the Russian Orthodox Church that was not in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate (most widely known as ROCOR). In thinking about this struggle, Fr. Seraphim wrote:

“I know for myself that if I would have to sit down and think out for myself exactly which shade of ‘zealotry’ is the ‘correct’ one today-I will lose all peace of mind and be constantly preoccupied with questions of breaking communion, of how this will seem to others, of ‘what will the Greeks think’ (and which Greeks?), and ‘what will the Metropolitan think?”²

The deep issue here is not the particulars of whether Orthodox who are rebaptizing other Christians (Orthodox or not) are right or wrong. And in point of fact, the Russian Orthodox Church is more united today than it was then-as of 2007, ROCOR is back under the Moscow Patriarchate. Instead, I would argue that the underlying issue is Holy Orders, and the principles that provide the Orthodox Churches with a sense of who is Orthodox.
Later in the biography, Fr. Seraphim is quoted further on the struggles that he faced in reflecting on the disunity that he faced as an Orthodox believer.

“Throughout the year”, he wrote, “we have heard news of disharmony in the Church. In one monastery (Jordanville) the monks say ‘we are sheep without a shepherd’-and yet what would they do if the Abbot suddenly became stern and demanding in order to produce oneness of soul? In another monastery (Boston) there seems to be oneness of soul, but the impression is that it is not too deep and it is too dependent on ‘opinions’-opinions of the holiness of the Abbot, or the rightness of the monastery’s theology (and the wrongness of everyone else’s), of the superiority of ‘Greek’ to ‘Russian,’ etc. And everywhere-in parishes, in families and small groups-there burst out animosities for no apparent reason, and the best and meekest people are subjected to persecutions.
“Where is the cause to be found of this universal phenomenon today? Are true leaders vanishing in the Church? Or are the followers refusing their trust to those who could become leaders? Both things, of course, are happening, and in general the love of many is growing cold, and both leadership and trust are collapsing in a world based on revolutionary brashness and self-centeredness.
“What is the answer? To gain a position of leadership and compel obedience?-Impossible in today’s world. To offer blind obedience to some leader, preferably a ‘charismatic’ one?-Extremely dangerous; many people follow Fr. Panteleimon of Boston in this way, and the end of it looks disastrous, producing disharmony and friction on the way.
“To practice love, trust and life according to the Holy Fathers in the small circle where one is-there seems to be no other way to solve the ‘spiritual crisis’ of today which expresses itself in the absence of oneness of soul and mind. If one finds the mind of the Fathers, then one will be at one with the others who find it also. This is much better than just following what so-and-so says, taking on faith that he is somehow infallible. But how difficult it seems to find the mind of the Fathers! How many disagreements there are with others equally sincere! Or is this because we have not searched long or deeply enough?
“May God give us the answer to this agonizing question!”³

When I read this part of the biography, I was moved to great sadness for what the Orthodox faithful have suffered in trying to find unity and purity. There are many issues surrounding these problems, but again in my mind a key one is the predominant Orthodox view of Holy Orders. When Holy Orders are not indelible, there is a shifting perspective as to who is holy and who is Orthodox, even to the point of judging within Orthodoxy, not to mention Catholicism. Fr. Seraphim’s emphasis on finding the “mind of the Fathers” sounds wonderful (and it is truly the ultimate answer to all problems in the world), but of course his opponents would have said that they were doing the same thing. This shifting perspective sadly shares the subjectivity and individualism of Protestantism, as individuals or groups end up making different conclusions about the source of the Church when the standards are anything but Apostolic Succession.

Flying in stark contrast to this view of the Church is the view offered by Catholicism. This view holds that despite the flaws in our ordained leaders and those in communion with them, there is a gift of grace that cannot be wiped away. It is so powerful that despite the fact that some Orthodox would not esteem a Catholic as living in grace (Fr. Seraphim Rose himself wrote much against Catholicism, for example), the Catholic can turn the other cheek and stand upon Holy Orders, thanking God for the grace that comes to the Orthodox Churches. Please note that I wrote “can”–tragic failures of Catholics to appreciate Orthodox do not speak to our principles, but because of those principles I will say it again: I love the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox.

And so, it is the Catholic vision of the Church that most fully preserves respect and love for all Apostolic Churches. It is a broader view that leaves the mandates of either/or, and is open to a more complex ecclesiology that at times will emphasize both/and, which is true of its views on other doctrines such as the teachings on the relationship between faith and works. The Catholic view holds Her own sacraments to be valid, but She also holds the various Orthodox Churches to have the full sacramental life. Thus, there is a principled sacramental basis for saying that the Catholic loves the Orthodox too much to be Orthodox. Again I stress that not all Catholics do this–but our catechisms and councils beg us to do so. I am also not saying that there are no Orthodox who share this vision-I am thankful for those Orthodox who have spoken out in support of this thinking such as Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev of the Moscow Patriarchate. But in Catholicism there is an authoritative, principled basis for a mutual respect of the successors of the Apostles that springs from this view of Holy Orders. In relegating the Bishop of Rome and those in communion with him to something lower, there is a sense in which Orthodoxy has lowered Herself at the same time, tragically. May Our Lord raise us all through a growth in appreciation for His fellow children, each other. Through this appreciation, I pray that this fractionation would end and end soon, via a stronger love for Orthodoxy that comes from a stronger love of the mystery of Holy Orders. As for me, in my evaluation of Tradition, it is not that I did not see the Tradition in Orthodoxy. It was due to my love for the Orthodox that I entered into communion with the Popes throughout the ages through Catholicism. Our love for Orthodoxy provides a principled way for us to not only hear the call from above that is communion with God; it is a call that beseeches us to end the horizontal divisions amongst the Churches. May we all answer that call, to the best of our ability.

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church
2. Father Seraphim Rose-His Life and Works, Hieromonk Damascene
3. Father Seraphim Rose-His Life and Works, Hieromonk Damascene

In the Holy Orders article, I examined four New Testament passages concerning the ordination of the Apostles. ² To recap, the four passages examined were the initial designation of the Apostles (Mark 3:13-15), the Last Supper, the appearance of the risen Christ (John 20:21-23), and Pentecost. Each of the four passages emphasized various aspects of Apostolic or episcopal ordination.

St. Paul’s own ordination seems unique in that his calling included a special emphasis on the preaching of the Word. In fact, St. Paul says “Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel.”³ I argued in the Holy Orders article that the sacramental charismata received by the Apostles was consistently associated in patristics with the breathing of the Holy Spirit in John 20. One interesting (but speculative) point is that St. Paul was not there. Thus, St. Paul’s absence at the point which signified the sacramental aspect of the Apostolic office shows, in part, that his Apostleship uniquely emphasized another aspect of the Apostolic office.

The point is not, in any way, to deny that the fullness of Apostolic authority was granted to St. Paul, nor to say that his mission to preach somehow excluded a sacramental ministry. 1 Corinthians 1:16 confirms, for example, that he did baptize. And presumably, it is St. Paul who presides over the Eucharist in Acts 20:7.

The Apostolic office was the fullness of the Christian ministry. It contained everything that proceeded from its authority: the rule of the bishop, the collegiate function of the presbytery, the service of the diaconate, the power to offer sacrifice, the power to forgive sins, the authority to interpret the Scriptures, and finally – the commission to preach the Word. As I argued in the Holy Orders article, each of these aspects were signified, in part, by the various passages shown above. I also noted (in section IV.b) that certain aspects of the priestly ministry varied in emphasis by locality. The episcopal or Apostolic office was so robust that one aspect could be, and often was, emphasized in harmony with the other aspects without excluding them. The emphasis for St. Paul was the preaching of the Word; for St. James it was episcopal authority; for St. Peter it was perhaps sacramentalism. ⁴

The Apostleship of St. Paul seems to be unique in that he wasn’t the equivalent of a bishop ordained by the Apostles such as Sts. Evaristus, Timothy, or Linus, et al, nor was he a replacement such as St. Mathias to fill the “episcopacy” of Judas. He was directly commissioned by Christ as an apostle with the unique mission of preaching the gospel throughout the world.

1. Acts 1:15-26. For an argument that ‘the twelve’ and ‘Apostles’ are the same, see Cirlot, Felix Apostolic Succession at the Bar of Modern Scholarship, (1946)
2. See section IV.d
3. 1 Corinthians 1:17
4. For St. Peter, the emphasis on sacramentalism can be seen in his emphasis on the necessity of baptism (Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21) and in the Church Fathers’ understanding of the power of the Keys (Matt 16:18-19) being especially linked with the authority to ‘bind and loose’ and to forgive sins. e.g. Tertullian, On Modesty, 21. It can also be seen in St. Peter as the principle of sacramental authority. (See St. Cyprian of Carthage On the Unity of the Church, 4)

I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Peter,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor 1:10-13).

The Apostle’s purpose in writing to the Corinthian Christians was, “that there be no divisions” in the Church. Paul could not conceive of Christians naming themselves after human church leaders. Paul exhorted the Corinthians not to tolerate those who claimed to be “Pauline” Christians. Nor should there be any “Apollonian” or “Petrine” Christians. Given Paul’s insistence against name-bearing sects, we might safely conclude that he would fiercely condemn the practice of certain Christians who identify themselves as “Lutherans” or “Calvinists.” Even the word “denomination” comes from the Latin de nomine meaning “of a name”. This denominational arrangement is completely foreign to the teachings of Paul. For this reason, the Catholic Church never has accepted a “denominational” understanding of Church.

Notice also how Paul associates “name-calling” with salvation.

Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor 1:13)

Recall how Paul understands the Church as a participation in the person and life of Christ. To call oneself “Pauline” or “Lutheran” is to claim participation in the one whose name you bear. To be a “denominational Christian” is tantamount to identifying “Paul” or “Luther” as the redeemer and founder of one’s faith. In fact, Saint Paul specifically instructed Christians in every case to “avoid those who cause schism” (Rom 16:17). Even if the Church requires renewal, Paul believes that division is not the means to achieve it.

Saint Paul further identifies the unity of the Church with the Holy Spirit. In his Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul identifies the unity of the Church with the unity of the Holy Spirit, the unity of Christ, the unity of the faith, the unity of baptism and finally the unity of God the Father. It is difficult to imagine a more compelling argument for the unity of the Church:

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all (Eph 4:1-6).

Paul asks Christians to be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit”. Only the Catholic Church has maintained the unity that Christ established before He ascended into Heaven. No other “denomination” is able to claim Paul in this regard. Paul was, and remains, Catholic in every regard.

Please look for Taylor Marshall’s new book The Catholic Perspective on Paul later in 2010 or visit PaulisCatholic.com to read other essays and listen to podcasts about Saint Paul and Catholic doctrine. Taylor is also the author of The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity.

I have to confess when I was PCA I embraced this view of Calvin but when Father put it that way I had never thought of it that way before either. That being said, is not Calvin’s view strangely similar to the Jewish opponents of John the Baptist, who warned the Pharisees, “do not presume to say to yourselves, `We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Matt 3:9)? Is not the appeal of Calvin an appeal to natural generation as the means to covenant participation and salvation? Lest anyone think Calvin did not have in mind salvation he wrote this, “Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts for his own when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. In this promise their salvation is included.”²

Is Calvin’s view similar to those who claimed natural lineage to Abraham as their means for being sharers of salvation? What say you?

1. Institutes Book IV 15:22
2. Ibid. IV 15:20

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.” (St. John 15:18)

The Supper at Emmaus
Diego Rodriguez de Silva y Velázquez (1620)
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Those who claim that Christ is “our present experience of life-giving love that transcends the human condition,” had they lived in Jerusalem from AD 30-33, would have looked upon the man from Nazareth and seen at most only a rabbi who teaches us about the Christ-experience and through whose illumination we can encounter the Christ-experience. They would have been utterly scandalized by His claim to be God, but more likely they would have treated it as a mere metaphor, or as an invitation to us all to join him in discovering our own inner divine identity. They would have been many things rolled into one: Ebionites, because for them the rabbi from Nazareth was a mere man. They would have been Docetists, because for them the transcendent Christ-experience is not to be identified with any particular human being, though they grant that at one time in history the transcendent Christ-experience was most seemingly present in the rabbi from Nazareth. For them the true universal and timeless Christ-experience did not actually become, and could not become, this Nazarene, but is already subconsciously within every person, to be encountered concretely through inner exploration and deepening self-consciousness. They would have been Nestorians, because for them the teacher from Nazareth came to an inner harmony of self-discovery, and thus became for us a channel, one among many, in which we may encounter within us by transcendental enlightenment the one divine Christ-experience of loving self-awareness. They would have been monophysites, because for them the transcendent Christ-experience has no animal nature or physical body, but is the universal energy of divine love which we encounter within ourselves by abstracting ourselves from matter, the senses and our animal pole. In that way they would have denied Christ’s human nature. They would have been monothelitists, for whom the teaching of the rabbi from Nazareth is neither authoritative nor infallible, but through whose enlightenment we too might encounter the all-embracing volitional dynamism of the trans-personal Christ-consciousness. They would have been iconoclasts, ridiculing those who revered His image as entirely missing the point, as mistaking the man for His spiritual message, and in doing so detracting from the attention due to the divine Christ-experience.

“If they have called the head of the house ‘Beelzebub,’ how much more shall they call them of his household?” (St. Matthew 10:25)

“Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.” (St. John 16:2)

Those who think that the “holy catholic Church” referred to in the Apostles’ Creed is “the invisible communion of all those who believe in Christ” look upon the Catholic Church, and see at most only an institution that teaches men about Christ and through whom people may experience Christ. They are utterly scandalized by the Catholic Church’s claim to be the “holy catholic Church” of the Creed, or they treat it as a mere metaphor, a physical example of that creedal ideal toward which we all are striving. They are ecclesial Ebionites, because for them the Catholic Church is a merely man-made institution. They are ecclesial Docetists, because for them the “holy catholic Church” is not to be identified with any particular ecclesial body on earth, though they may grant that at one time in history the “holy catholic Church” was most seemingly present in the Catholic Church. For them the resurrected and glorified Christ did not literally become, and could not become, the Head of the Catholic Church, but is Head rather of a spiritual community to which are invisibly joined all believers by an inner movement of faith. They are ecclesial Nestorians, for whom the Catholic Church developed her own unique spirituality, and thus became for us a channel, one among many, through which we may encounter the message and life of the divine Christ. They are ecclesial monophysites, because for them the “holy catholic Church” is no unified visible hierarchy, identifiable body or particular institution, but is a universal and invisible union of all believing souls with the invisible Christ, a union we encounter not through matter or the senses, but within ourselves through an inner act of the will, a trusting prayer of faith that rests and receives. They treat the Church as having only a spiritual nature, hence an invisible communion of believers united spiritually, not necessarily visibly. By denying the visible hierarchical unity that is essential to a human society, ecclesial monophysitism drops the human nature of the Church, and retains only the divine nature of the Church. They are ecclesial monothelitists, for whom the Catholic Church’s binding and loosing, teaching and disciplining are merely that of the will of men, and not also that of the will of Christ Himself, the Head of His Mystical Body. They are ecclesial iconoclasts, ridiculing those who revere the Catholic Church as the living image of Christ the Head as entirely missing the point, as mistaking a merely human thing for the spiritual message it teaches, and in doing so detracting from the attention due to the invisible Christ.

“… she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus.” (St. John 20:14)

“among you stands One whom you do not know.” (St. John 1:26)

Where is Christ’s Church? It is right in front of us. We have not recognized it, because her members have no form or majesty that we should look at them. They are in other respects quite ordinary. But there is something unique about Christ’s Church, something that characterized the Man from Nazareth:

“He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isaiah 53:3)

“Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him.” (Acts 7:54)

To find the Man from Nazareth, we could have followed the hate, loathing and rage; it would have led us right to Him. Likewise, to find His Body today, follow the same. Notice the direction that the anger and hate is oriented, and follow it to its object.

And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered.” (St. Luke 17:37)