Introduction
I recently finished reading the “Complete and Updated” Catechism
of the Catholic Church (New York : Doubleday, 1995. 845 pages!) which is
the definitive statement of what the Roman Catholic Church believes. I thought
I’d give my impressions and analysis from an Evangelical perspective.
First, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I probably
agreed with 80-90% of it! For example, as I expected, it affirmed the deity and
the physical resurrection of Jesus (# 654, 643). It also affirmed the reality
of hell and the substitutionary atonement of Jesus, i.e. the idea that Jesus
died an atoning sacrifice in our place for our sins (#1035, #615).
I was surprised to see that the Catechism affirmed the
inerrancy of Scripture and the importance of authorial intent in interpreting
Scripture (#107, #109, #110, #136). I was even more surprised to find that the
Catechism affirmed belief in a coming tribulation period (of unspecified
length) during which the Antichrist will offer men apparent solutions to their
problems at the price of apostasy from the truth (#675).
On repentance, faith and grace
I was somewhat surprised, to discover what the Catechism
says about salvation, grace and faith. Although the Catechism says that “It is
through Christ’s Catholic Church alone…that…salvation can be obtained” (#181, #816,
#1445), it also paradoxically affirmed the salvation of people who belong to
other Christian churches (#818, #819, #838, #1271) and possibly even some from
other religions (#841-843, #947).
The Catechism also affirms that conversion “is first of all
a work of the grace of God” (#1432) and that “Our justification comes from the
grace of God…the free undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call
to become children of God” (#1996). This comes through faith which is also “a
gift of God” (#153, cf. #154, #162, #179). Faith includes not only “assent to
his words” (#1122) but also love for God (#1033) and the “personal adherence of
the whole man to God” (#176) in which man “seeks to know and do God’s will”
(#1814; cf. #546). Such faith is preceded by repentance which is,
A radical reorientation of our
whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a
turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have
committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s
life, with the hope in God’ mercy and trust in the help of his grace (#1431).
These statements on repentance and faith would sound
positively Evangelical were it not for some other statements that give
Evangelicals significant concern. For example, the Catechism teaches that the
sacraments, and the “service and witness to the faith” are all necessary
to salvation (#980, #1129, #1816, #1256, #1257; emphasis mine). The Catechism
says that “Conversion is accomplished in daily life by…concern for the
poor, exercise and defense of justice and right…revision of life…endurance of
persecution…” etc. (#1435; emphasis mine).
In his letter to the Galatians, Paul strongly condemned the
teaching that circumcision and good works were necessary for salvation. So when
the Catechism teaches that the sacraments and the “service and witness to the
faith” are necessary to salvation, this sounds very similar to the Galatian
heresy.
Evangelicals argue that “service of and witness to the faith” are the fruit
of salvation, not the means to salvation. We would insist that conversion is evidenced
by concern for the poor, the exercise of justice, etc. not the result of such
good works.
This may seem like splitting hairs but the difference is absolutely
crucial. Over and over again Paul taught that we are saved by God’s grace
through faith, not by any good works we do. Paul writes, “For by grace are you
saved through faith, and not of yourselves, not of works lest any man should
boast.” Paul is quick to add, however, that “we are his workmanship created for
good works” (Ephesians 2:8-10). Works
are the necessary fruit of faith, not the cause of salvation.
Sacraments of Eucharist and Baptism
One of the sacraments seen to be necessary for salvation is
Baptism. The Catechism says that in Baptism “all sins are forgiven, original
and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin” (#1263, cf. #405).
According to the Catechism, baptism “communicates…the life that originates in
the Father” and baptism “gives us the grace of the new birth” (#683, cf. #405).
In Catholic theology baptism is the New Testament
counterpart to circumcision. Paul specifically argues, however, that
circumcision was a sign of the covenant, not a prerequisite to salvation
(Romans 4:9-11). Paul argued that those who were trusting in circumcision for
salvation were not saved at all (Galatians 5:1-4). Evangelicals see little
difference between insisting that circumcision is necessary for salvation and
insisting that baptism is necessary for salvation. This is not to say that
baptism is unimportant, indeed, the informed refusal to be baptized may be
evidence of an unconverted heart. But baptism is the initial sign and evidence
of salvation, not something that communicates or brings about salvation.
The Eucharist is another sacrament seen by the Roman
Catholic Church as necessary for salvation. The Catechism teaches that the
Eucharist is a literal sacrifice of Christ in which he “gives us his very body
which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he ‘poured out for
many for the forgiveness of sins” (#1365). The Catechism points out that the
Old Testament priesthood was “powerless to bring about salvation, needing to
repeat its sacrifices ceaselessly…” (#1450). On the other hand, the Catechism
teaches that Jesus instituted the Eucharist to “perpetuate the sacrifice of the
cross throughout the ages until he should come again” (#1323).
First, it seems a bit odd that the Catechism should
criticize the perpetual nature of Old Testament sacrifice while teaching the
perpetual nature of the sacrifice of Jesus in the Eucharist. Second, the
Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist seems to downplay the “once for all” nature
of Jesus’ sacrifice (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 10:1-10). Finally, to take Jesus
literally when he said, “this is my body,” and “this is my blood,” appears to
Evangelicals like insisting that when Jesus said, “I am the vine” he was
affirming that he was vegetation.
Salvation
I was puzzled by the fact that although the Catechism
teaches that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation and that baptism
actually imparts salvation, yet paradoxically the Catechism also held out hope
that unbaptized infants might be saved (#1261). It also affirms that
“The plan of salvation also
includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst who are
the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, an together with us
they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (#841-843).
Muslims certainly do not undergo Christian baptism which,
according to the Catechism, removes sin and imparts salvation. In fact, the
Qur’an not only denies the Trinity in general (Sura 4.171; 5.173) and the deity
of Jesus in particular (Sura 5.72, 116), it even insists that those who worship
Jesus will go to hell (Sura 9.30-35)! It is a mystery how those who adamantly
deny and denounce the cardinal teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can be
seen by the Church to have eternal life—especially in light of First John 2:23
which says that “no one who denies the Son has the Father….” That alone is
enough to cause Evangelicals to question the infallibility of the Pope and bishops,
which raises the next issue.
Final authority
One of the biggest disagreements between Protestants and
Catholics concerns the final authority in matters of faith and practice. Ever
since the Reformation, Evangelicals have regarded the Bible as the final
authority in matters of faith and practice. The Catechism, however, is clear
that “Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal
sentiments of devotion and reverence” (#82) and that “Sacred Tradition and
Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (#97).
First, this seems to contradict tradition itself. Ignatius (d.
AD 110), for example, is careful to distinguish his writings from those of the
apostles. In his letter to the Trallians he writes, “…I did not think myself
qualified for this, that I, a convict, should give you orders as though I were
an apostle” (3). To the Romans Ignatius writes, “I do not give you orders like
Peter and Paul: they were apostles…” (4).
Similarly, in about AD 110 Polycarp writes,
For neither I nor anyone like me
can keep pace with the wisdom of the blessed and glorious
Paul, who, when he
was among you in presence of men of that time, accurately and reliably taught
the word concerning the truth. And when he was absent he wrote you letters, if
you study them carefully, you will be able to build yourselves up in the faith
that has been given to you…” (3).
The same attitude toward the apostles seems to be found in
Clement of Rome (AD97; To the Corinthians, 42, 47). It appears that authors of
the very earliest post-biblical tradition did not consider their writings on
par with the apostles and other writers of New Testament books. Instead, they
regularly quoted from books now collected in the New Testament as their
authority. This was even more true of later church Fathers. The idea that the
Church would later lift their writings up to the level of Scripture would have
been scandalous to them.
Second, the church fathers sometimes exhibit strong
disagreements and outright contradictions among themselves. In other words, the
only traditions that are treated as inspired are those selected by later Church
leaders.
Finally, the Catechism is clear that “The task of giving
authentic interpretation of the Word of God…has been entrusted to the living,
teaching office of the Church alone” (#85). More precisely, “the task of
interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the
successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome” (#85). The Catechism teaches that the
Pope and bishops have infallibility with regard to faith and morals (#890,
#891, #2035).
Infallibility of the Church
To Evangelical ears this is especially puzzling. First,
there is nothing in Scripture that would teach infallibility of the Church.
Second, this doctrine seems to create problems for the Church itself. For
example, the Catechism strongly affirms that Christians should continually read
the Scriptures for themselves. It says, “access to Sacred Scripture ought to be
open wide to the Christian faithful” (#131). The Catechism goes so far as to
say that “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” (#133).
On the other hand, in times past the Catholic Church, as a
matter of official policy, was instrumental in the imprisonment and even
execution of those who insisted that Christians should read Scriptures for
themselves, e.g. Wycliffe, Tyndale, and hundreds if not thousands of ordinary Christians
whose only crime was the possession of the Scriptures in English. That raises
the question: Which Church is infallible? Was it the modern Church which
insists that Christians should read Scriptures for themselves, or the Church in
times past that persecuted Christians who read the Scriptures?
Another example would be that the Church once taught that
there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church (vestiges of this
teaching are still found in the Catechism, e.g. sections 181, 816, and 1445).
On the other hand, the Catechism now affirms that many Protestants (and
possibly even some in other religions) are saved. Which teaching is infallible;
the teaching in the Catechism of today which holds out salvation for
non-Catholics, or the Church’s teaching in the past which confined salvation to
the Roman Catholic Church alone?
Yet another example is the fact that the Catechism condemns
torture and killing (#2297). The
catechism even acknowledges that “In times past, cruel practices were commonly
used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest
from Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals of
the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture.” The section continues,
“Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency
and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood” (#2298).
Many will undoubtedly find this section misleading if not
outright deceptive. First, while it may be true that clerics were forbidden to personally
shed blood, it was the bishops of the church who handed the “heretics” over to
civil authorities to be tortured and/or executed for their opposition to the
Church. I’m sure it made little difference to the victims whether they were
being tortured directly by the Church, or by civil authorities on behalf of the
Roman Catholic Church. Second, it is simply not true that these practices were
always used “to maintain law and order.” Torture was often used simply to weed
out and punish otherwise law-abiding and peaceful “heretics.”
The point of this discussion, however is to ask the
question: Which Church was infallible, the modern church which condemns
torture, or the Church in times past which, for hundreds of years,
made it a regular practice?
Yet another reason to question Church infallibility is the
Catechism teaching that man “must not be forced to act contrary to his
conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience,
especially in religious matters” (#1782). In times past, however, the Church regularly
sought to force people like Martin Luther, for example, to act or profess
contrary to their conscience.
Mary
Catholics would no doubt protest that these were not
official proclamations of the Catholic Church but such protestations would sound
pretty hollow to Protestants who were often the victims of such official
persecution carried out by the bishops in full communion with Rome.
Therefore, while there is much in the Catechism that
Evangelicals and affirm and celebrate, Evangelicals will insist that that the
Pope and bishops are not infallible and that some parts of the catechism are
merely “barnacles” of tradition, added by the Church on its own authority apart
from the authority of Jesus and the apostles.
Take, for example the Church’s teaching on Mary. The
Catechism teaches not only that Mary was devoid of original sin, but that she
was absolutely sinless during her entire life (#411, #491, #493, #508, #722, #966).
By contrast, the Bible teaches that “There is no one righteous, not even one”
and that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”(Romans 3:10, 23).
The Bible specifically indicates that Jesus is an exception to this rule (Hebrews
4:15; 7:26; 9:14; 1 Peter 2:22; 2 Corinthians 5:21; John 8:46) but there are no
statements anywhere in Scripture that would say or imply that Mary is also an
exception. The sinlessness of Mary is a doctrine developed by the Church long
after New Testament times and is in direct contradiction to what the New
Testament teaches (It is interesting that the Catechism actually talks much
more about the sinlessness of Mary than it does about the sinlessness of
Jesus).
Similarly, the Catechism teaches that Mary was “taken up
body and soul into heavenly glory” and was “exalted as Queen over all things”
(#966, cf. #969, #974). The Bible knows nothing of this. This is another
example of “barnacles” which attached themselves to Christianity long after the
time of the apostles. Other “barnacles” include the Church’s teaching on
indulgences (#1471, #1479), purgatory (#1030-1032, #1054, #1475, #1479), Mary’s
perpetual virginity (#499, #500), and the teaching that
Mary and the canonized
faithful become intercessors for us (#1014, #828), none of which have any basis
in the New Testament.
Veneration and Worship
One of the most serious “barnacles” is the doctrine of the
“veneration” of Mary and of icons. The Church recognizes that if people were to
worship Mary or icons they would be guilty of idolatry so the bishops are adamant
that veneration is not the same as adoration or worship (#971). Unfortunately,
the Catechism does not always make this distinction. For example, section #1378
refers to the “Worship of the Eucharist” in which “faith in the real presence
of Christ under the species of bread and wine” is expressed by “genuflecting,
or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord.” The section goes on to
say,
The Catholic church has always
offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration,
not only during the Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated
hoses with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of
the faithful” (#1378, emphasis mine).
First, in this section the words “worship,” “adoration,” and
“veneration” are seemingly used synonymously, so when Catholics say that they
venerate Mary and icons, but adore or worship Christ, Evangelicals hope
Catholics will understand our skepticism, especially in light of the impression
we have that many average Catholics don’t really seem to make much distinction
between veneration and worship.
Second, in an attempt to explain that the “veneration” of
the icon of Christ is not idolatry, the Catechism states that icons of Christ
“can be venerated” because the one “who venerates the icon is venerating in it
the person of the one depicted” (#477). Since the subject of this “veneration”
is Christ himself, we can only conclude that the word “veneration” here is used
synonymously with worship. It, therefore, appears to Evangelicals that the only
distinction between veneration and worship is that if you “venerate” Christ,
you are worshiping him but if you “venerate” Mary or icons you are not worshiping them. This is a distinction without a difference.
Third, section #2132 says,
Religious worship is not directed
to images themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive
aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate.
So the worship is not actually directed to the images but
rather to what the images symbolize. Unfortunately, this does little to ease
Evangelical concerns that Catholics are engaged in idolatry. After Aaron
crafted the Golden Calf he immediately announced a “festival to Yahweh.” He
apparently saw the calf as a visual representation of Yahweh worship. According
to the story, Yahweh saw it as idolatry and considered it to be a very serious
offense (Exodus 32:1-5). Evangelicals generally fail to see much difference
between the use of a golden calf in the worship of Yahweh and the use of a
crucifix (or other icon) in the worship of Jesus.
It would be possible to argue that I am just quibbling over
words, and that the Church is not really teaching the worship of Mary and that the
sections in the Catechism that use the words worship, veneration and adoration
synonymously were just unfortunate, unguarded statements. Similarly, it would
be possible to argue that the Church is really not guilty of the Galatian
heresy of requiring works for salvation, rather the Church really means that
baptism, the Eucharist, other Sacraments and good works are the essential fruit
of salvation and not something people must do in order to be saved. If
this was the case, it would go a long way toward unifying Catholics and
Protestants if the Catholic Church were to revise the Catechism with a view
toward making these positions more clear.
Conclusion
I agreed with the majority of the Catechism and found it a
joy and blessing to read. Nevertheless, some of the disagreements—like the
infallibility of the Church, the “veneration” of Mary and icons, or the precise
relationship between faith and works, are extremely significant and could be
matters of spiritual life and death.
