Catholic Questions Part 2: Horton, Sungenis, Justification and the Confusion Over Trent

Posted byChaplainmikePosted inCommentary, Theologia

logo-wi.gifThe November 4th edition of the White Horse Inn was an interview of well-known Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis. It is called “Roman Catholicism and Justification.” The MP3 is available free from WHIs OnePlace site, and I highly recommend it.

(By the way, if you want to hear what it sounds like when a world-class Reformation scholar restrains himself commendably in an interview so his opponent can have his say clearly and without being attacked, listen to this. I imagine Horton was about to respond and disagree loudly at points, but he plays the gracious interviewer and says nothing. Well…with one exception 🙂

Sungenis gives what I consider to be a refreshingly honest collection of answers on the subject of grace, justification and the “solas.” Horton follows that interview with a brief interview with Mark Noll, co-author of Is The Reformation Over?

The interview brought a few questions to my mind that I’d like to invite IM readers, especially Catholics, to engage. As usual, I am not looking for debate, but a clear presentation of distinctions, definitions and meanings.

If possible, listen to the program. If not, and you still are going to comment, say so.

Sungenis was the first Catholic I’ve heard in a long time interpret the anathemas of Trent in the following way: A) They are still the clear and unaltered teaching of the church on justification, B) anyone who understands the teaching of the church against justification by faith alone and knowledgeably rejects it is anathema, and C) this does not simply refer to the Reformers, but to any Christian who knowledgeably rejects Catholic teaching and teaches that justification is primarily a legal declaration by God.

Question 1: Is Sungenis correctly interpreting the Council of Trent for Protestants, or is there a major reinterpretation/clarification necessary for those who have never been Roman Catholics, but always taught in Protestant beliefs?

Question 2: If Sungenis is correct, then is the Roman Catholic Church, in the Vatican II teaching on Ecumenism, calling as “Separated Brethren” large numbers of persons who are, because of their knowledgeable rejection of the teaching of Trent, actually condemned and who must repent of heresy to be saved? In other words, is “Separated Brethren” really an honest and accurate description?

Question 3: Sungenis portrays Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmeyer, prominent Catholic New Testament scholars respected and cited by many Protestants, as liberals corrupted by Protestant graduate educations. Is Sungenis giving a mainstream point of view here, or are these scholars considered on the fringes of Catholic teaching?

Question 4: Is Sungenis, a former seminary educated evangelical fundamentalist for 18 years, indicative of mainstream Catholic apologetics, or has Catholic apologetics become a primary example of a kind of “denominationalism” in Roman Catholicism; in this case, where former Protestants represent Catholicism to other Protestants in ways quite different from the ways lifelong Catholics would present it?

Question 5: Mark Noll says that the entire separation between Protestants and Catholics over justification is the result of Protestants separating justification and sanctification, while Roman Catholicism holds both together under the term “justification.” Accordingly, Noll sees this as a false dilemma for both communities, though other issues are real dilemmas. Is Noll correct that the heart of the Reformation debate is simply semantics, and we would be fairer to one another to graciously accept that both sides are talking about salvation by the grace of God, but in different ways?

NOTE: Part of the reason that I am raising these questions are the simply bizarre and inconsistent responses I have received from RC friends the past few months to any serious inquiries about the anathemas of Trent. One person waved his hand and dismissed them as irrelevant to contemporary Protestant understanding of Catholicism. One person said that V2 had changed the relationship of Protestants and Catholics so that Trent didn’t matter. Another said Trent only applied to the Reformers who were once Roman Catholics, not to those of us born outside of the RCC. Other Catholics are irritated when I’ve brought up the anathemas, like they were a weird uncle who should never be discussed in polite company. And of course, there’s always the “Well…since the Pope’s not right here at this moment, I really can’t say” response. Great to have all those authoritative pronouncements resolving the questions Protestants can’t agree on, isn’t it? What’s up with this? If I can’t get a coherent answer to those one, it’s “check please” for me in RC/Evangelical discussions.

In Protestantism, we can all distance ourselves from whatever we disagree with or find embarrassing with a bit more ease. For example, the dating rules of Bob Jones University were not something all Protestants had to defend in some way. Or take my views of Creationism. I’m not obligated to assimilate and agree with Ken Hamm. But Trent’s anathemas are going to dominate the discussion of Protestant-Catholic relations, and all Catholics have to believe them. I find it highly confusing that the responses from Catholic friends are so evasive and inconsistent.

I read V2 on ecumenism and I think “Separated Brethren.” I hear Sungenis and other conservative Catholics and I say, “Separated, by the fact that I’m going to hell.” In fact, when you put it all together, Muslims get a far better shake than Protestants who knowingly reject the RC doctrine of justification. If God is less hacked by the Koran, Mohamed, salvation by works, Hajj and jihad than he is by distinctions made among Apostles’ Creed believing Christians over the exact description of greek terms in Romans, then I’m toast for sure.

I wouldn’t bring this up if it didn’t matter, and I doubt that I am the only Protestant who’s had this problem.

54 thoughts on “Catholic Questions Part 2: Horton, Sungenis, Justification and the Confusion Over Trent”

  2. I am always fashionably late to these parties.

    They are still the clear and unaltered teaching of the church on justification

    Absolutely.

    anyone who understands the teaching of the church against justification by faith alone and knowledgeably rejects it is anathema

    Not quite. Anathema was a particularly “intense” form of excommunication. As is obvious, the Catholic Church cannot excommunicate those who are already outside her communion. Which is to say, insofar as the Council of Trent represents the truth about justification, those who dismiss it obviously do so at their peril. However, the canonical penalties (i.e., anathema) attached to the various truth claims were aimed at Catholics, to whom the Church is Mother. And the Reformers were Catholics.

    To incur the canonical penalty of anathema required that one be brought before a court in Rome. Rarely has anyone actually been brought before this court for this purpose. So few, in fact, that the penalty of anathema was taken off the books when the new code of canon law came out in 1983. Anathema is, however, still considered by many theologians to be a signal that an infallible truth has been proclaimed in council. So though the canonical penalty no longer exists (and has historically rarely been incurred), those anathemas are still useful as delineations of Catholic truth.

    this does not simply refer to the Reformers, but to any Christian who knowledgeably rejects Catholic teaching and teaches that justification is primarily a legal declaration by God

    It would apply to Catholics (as the Reformers were), not as an anathema, but to truth claims that must not be denied by Catholics. Denial of such truths would constitute heresy, which does carry an excommunication with it, according to canon law, but again, you can’t kick out of communion those who aren’t in communion. It would be about as meaningful as your local church excommunicating Paris Hilton. Presuming she’s not a member 🙂

    Like

  4. I did not enjoy the interview. I really thought Dr. Horton should have challenged Sungenis more than he did. And if Horton didn’t want to debate with him, he should have at least used the last ten minutes of the show to reaffirm the Christian position of Sola Fide, not interview another person who was planting seeds of doubt.

    If this was the first episode of White Horse Inn I ever heard, I would have never listened to it again. This episode seemed to be a platform for the other side to espouse their views without any resistance.

    – The Pilgrim

    Like

  5. What I find noteworthy is the lack of any real answer about his anti-Semitism, plagiarism and what have you.

    http://cadl.blogspot.com/2007/12/infamous-video.html

    http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/06/cai-kind-of-apologizes-for-robin.html

    http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/03/sixteen-proofs-of-sungeniss-anti.html

    This man does not speak for the Catholic Church. He even changed the name of his organization to take the name “Catholic” out of it.

    Like

  7. Laurence,

    Bob is already aware of Chris’ site. I challenged him on it a few weeks ago, and his response was an extended, nasty invective.

    The statement I quote is from Ed Suter’s question on the Bellarmine forum “Pedagogy of deceit denying Mary Virgin.”

    JMJ,
    Ben

    Like

  8. Ben Douglass writes: “several of his Jewish articles are still online at another site run by his promotions director, Chris Campbell: http://sungenisandhiscritics.blogspot.com/”

    I will contact Bob about this. I had no knowledge of Chris’ site. I have not evn, as yet, have had contact with him.

    Can you also tell me which document has the quote you presented? ““It is astonishing to me how people who call themselves ‘Christian’ can ignore so much of Jesus’ teachings only to fall for the self-exalting megalomania…”

    Thanks.

    ~Laurence

    Like

  9. Oh, and some people have accused Sungenis of holding a rigorist, even Feeneyite view of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is false. I don’t think his views on this dogma are any different from the Pope’s.

    Like

  10. As far as the charge of anti-Semitism goes, it is completely justified. I offer a small sampling of Sungenis’ reprehensible behavior with respect to Jewish issues.

    (1) He has made use of forged quotations of Roy Schoeman (Jewish convert to Catholicism) and Albert Einstein, and stuck behind them obstinately even after they were exposed as forgeries. The forged Schoeman quote was sent to him by a young man with whom he had only recently struck up correspondence. It was promptly exposed as a doctored version of an article available on the internet, yet Sungenis left it online and defended it for quite some time. For that whole sordid story, including the part where Sungenis claimed (falsely) to have traced the young man’s e-mail address to Mark Shea and Jacob Michael (the fearsome two-headed judaizing monster, I suppose), see: http://www.pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm.

    With respect to the forged Einstein quote, Sungenis obviously copy pasted it from one of the myriad White Supremacist websites which carry it. It consists of two sentences, which are eight paragraphs apart in Einstein’s original article, which the forger connected without ellipses; after this there is an ellipsis and a third sentence which is fabricated out of whole cloth. This has been pointed out to Sungenis many times, yet he has never retracted the quote.

    (2) Sungenis has himself forged two quotes of Roy Schoeman. He states in his letter to the editor of The Latin Mass (Winter 2006, p. 5) that, according to Schoeman, “anyone who tries to stop [the return of the Jerusalem Temple] is ‘of the Antichrist'”, and “God will then proceed to make ‘the Old Covenant fulfill the New'”. Neither the phrase “of the Antichrist” nor “the Old Covenant fulfill the New” appear anywhere in Schoeman’s book. Furthermore, so far from believing that those who oppose the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple are of the Antichrist, Schoeman himself opposes it.

    (3) Sungenis has stated that there is nothing good in the Talmud. How does he know? Prejudice. I doubt he’s read 20 folios beginning to end; every critique he has put on his website besides mine has consisted in him copy-pasting or paraphrasing secondary sources like Jack Mohr, Ted Pike, or Michael Hoffman II. Sungenis has never demonstrated the slightest personal familiarity with the Talmud or published any original research. Yet, he feels qualified to say that there is nothing good in those thousands of pages! Well, allow me to say this as one who has spent a number of hours studying the Talmud, and on the whole am no fan of it at all: every once in a while the rabbis manage a witty aphorism, or a salutary precept, or a probable interpretation of Scripture, or some such.

    This leads into point (4), that Sungenis has habitually and uncritically gobbled up and regurgitated material from the Jack Chicks and Dave Hunts of anti-Judaism: Mohr, Dilling, Pike, Hoffman, National Vanguard (the now defunct racist organization whose leader was arrested for child pornography), Dr. Robert Ley (propaganda minister for the third Reich), etc. In some cases, to be fair, Sungenis did not know who was the author of the text he was copy-pasting onto his website, at the time he copy pasted it (this was the case with the Nazi propaganda tract). But does it reflect any better on Sungenis to note that he copy-pastes anti-Jewish texts onto his website without even knowing who wrote them? And in some cases, without even reading them? What rational consideration convinces him that a text of unknown origin, if it disparages Jews, is therefore ipso facto truthful and worth repeating? Prejudice.

    (5) After I left CAI, Sungenis asked me if I were Jewish, and when I responded no, publicly suggested that I was lying. He has also asked Michael Forrest, Jacob Michael, and David Palm whether they were Jewish. When they did not dignify his question with a response, he suggested they too were hiding their Jewishness.

    (6) Recently, Sungenis ran an article about Robin Williams mocking the Catholic priesthood. In his headline, he referred to Robin Williams as a “Jewish comedian.” Robin Williams is not Jewish; Sungenis simply assumed he was. Robin Williams did something evil, therefore he must be Jewish, so says the logic of prejudice. Similarly, Sungenis recently ran an article in which various scholars derided the Talpiot tomb theory. The article contained no quotations of Jewish scholars claiming they found Christ’s bones. Sungenis headlined the article: “Jewish scholars claim they found Christ’s bones.”

    (7) Even now that he’s justly been punished by his bishop, several of his Jewish articles are still online at another site run by his promotions director, Chris Campbell: http://sungenisandhiscritics.blogspot.com/ Also, he still publishes statements on his website such as the following: “It is astonishing to me how people who call themselves ‘Christian’ can ignore so much of Jesus’ teachings only to fall for the self-exalting megalomania, paranoia, venomous hatred of Jesus, and pedagogy of deceit of the rabbis.” He is also currently running a news article in order to imply that Israel is about to start an apocalyptic world war. Another news article is about Dear Abby promoting abortion and homosexuality. The reason this is relevant is because Sungenis has highlighted her Jewish ancestry in the past. Finally, Sungenis gave his personal imprimatur to an article by Tom Herron in the magazine Culture Wars, which was very disrespectful to Sungenis’ bishop.

    Like

  11. Dear all,

    I was Sungenis’ Vice President for about two years, so I know his theological views fairly well. There is nothing unorthodox in the views on justification as expressed in Not By Faith Alone. This is clear from the endorsements it received from the entire community of Catholic apologists. Sungenis’ exegesis of St. Paul’s phrase “works of the law” is controversial. He argues that it refers to any works performed on a principle of debt and obligation, whereas other Catholics will argue that it refers to works of the Torah. However, both opinions are within the pale.

    Others of his theological opinions, on the other hand, are well out of the mainstream.

    (1) Sungenis argues that God’s eternity consists in Him existing for an infinity of time: God has existed for an infinite time in the past and will exist for an infinite time in the future. Sungenis denies the mainstream view that God exists outside of time and that all moments are present to Him. I have never seen any theological authority endorse the Sungenis view.

    (2) Sungenis believes that God the Father absolutely required Jesus to suffer exactly as much as He suffered. Only this could suffice for the redemption of the human race. This contradicts the mainstream view, held by St. Thomas Aquinas and, as far as I can tell, all approved dogmatic theologians after him, that only one drop of Jesus’ blood would have sufficed. This is because just one of Jesus’ theandric acts, performed with infinite charity, is infinitely meritorious and therefore sufficient to counterbalance all the malice of every sin man ever committed.

    (3) Sungenis believes that God has real emotions. This is the closest Sungenis comes to outright heresy, when he says things like the Jews were so wicked, God couldn’t stand them any longer and so rejected them. If he meant this in a poetic, metaphorical sense, then it wouldn’t be heresy. On the other hand, if Sungenis intends to affirm that God was actually incapable of tolerating the Jews for any longer, he would in fact be teaching heresy.

    (4) Sungenis denies the conversion of the Jews at the end of time. That the Jews will convert has been the consistent teaching of Catholic exegetes since the patristic era, and our Holy Father himself, while Cardinal Ratzinger, has affirmed it.

    Like

  12. Phil–

    Hmmm…that would be a more plausible and self-consistent argument, I think. Great point. It admits of fewer exceptions and would be more compatible with the late classical and mediaeval theologians’ opinions that the Word had reached pretty much the whole world by then, and non-Christians had few excuses left. (This isn’t the same issue, I know, but it uses some of the same arguments.)

    I’ve read Augustine on the Donatist issue, in which he talks about the “knowing in your heart” exception. But I can’t remember if he puts it in terms of the present tense or the past perfect.

    So, do you know whether modern Catholic theology puts the “know/believe” exception in the present or the past perfect tense?

    Like

  13. Tim H., I’d think that your third point could be further elaborated by saying that the condemnations only apply to those who “knew” or “believed” at some point that the Catholic Church is the true Church and necessary to salvation. From that point, there is room for all sorts of self-deception and hardening of one’s heart so that one will end up not believing what he or she initially did.

    I’m not saying that I agree with this application of the argument, but I think that such self-deception certainly occurs in many areas. For one, consider that we all of us know of God’s existence, but then many of us end up sincerely disbelieving it.

    Like

  14. Dear All,

    Because of some technical difficulties I was given permission from Robert Sungenis and Peter Sean Bradley to post Peter’s retraction of his statements that he made here about Robert Sungenis. You can find the text through either of these two following links:

    http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Follow%20Up%20On%20Imonk%20Post%20By%20Peter%20Sean%20Bradley.doc

    or

    http://peterseanesq.blogspot.com/2007/11/follow-up-on-imonk-post.html

    God Bless,
    Laurence Gonzaga
    CAI/BTF Media

    Like

  15. I’ve seen some commenters here bring up the argument that:

    (1) the Tridentine anathemas (wouldn’t that be a great name for a band?) apply only to apostate Catholics and therefore apply to 16th c. Protestants because they’d once been Catholics.

    (2) the anathemas don’t apply to (most) modern Protestants, because most of us have grown up Protestant.

    (3) these sorts of condemnations only apply to someone who “knows” (therefore, “believes in his heart”) that the RC church is the true Church and necessary to salvation and yet refuses to be a part of it.

    I can accept some of the logic of (3), but if that’s what the RC church has always taught, then how many people has this *ever* applied to?! Surely this would have to be a very, very small fraction of either Protestants or even of apostate Catholics, wouldn’t it? Because you’ve got to figure that most Catholics who go “apostate” do so because they’ve decided in their heart that the RC church isn’t The Church.

    Yeah, there might be the rare, odd person here and there at some point in history, out of the billions of people on this planet, who have thought the RC church was the one true etc. but have had some weird mental tic that led them to not join it.

    But how could that tiny, tiny number of people ever lead to the spilling of so much ink at Trent?! Assuming that the vast majority of 16th century Protestants (even those who’d started as Roman Catholics) did *not* believe that the RC church was the one true etc., then why did the Council of Trent bother directing a bunch of anathemas at them?

    I just don’t buy it that this was the understanding of those who wrote this at Trent.

    Like

  16. Hello Everyone:

    I am Webmaster and Media Director of Robert Sungenis’ Apologetics Organization. I came across this blog and brought it to Robert’s attention. He made quick work of a response and I was asked to offer that here. If you wish to read the response please use the following links.

    Directly:
    http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Catholic%20Questions%20Part%202%20edited.doc

    Main Website:
    http://www.catholicintl.com

    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,
    Laurence Gonzaga
    CAI/BTF Media

    Like

  17. Leaving this important quote by Michael Haykin

    It is wrong to suppose that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, that storm center of the Reformation, was the crucial question in the minds of such theologians as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, and John Calvin. This doctrine was important to the Reformers because it helped to express and to safeguard their answer to another, more vital, question, namely, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christs’ sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith.

    Like

  18. Michael,

    In my view your post at Boorshead Tavern today was uncharitable. Your post suggests that there was a plethora of contradictory opinions on the applicability of the anathemas of Trent to modern Protestants.

    I don’t see the incoherent variation in these comments. What I see are various explanations for the answer “no.” This is natural and quite expected from human beings.

    The only “yes” that I’ve seen in this thread is that of Sungenis himself, who – for reasons I’ve indicated – is of questionable value as an authority on this subject.

    I think that you have also conflated various issues into one question.

    One issue is whether the anathemas of Trent apply to modern Protestants. The answer would be “no” since the church cannot formally excommunicate those who are not formally member of the church.

    Another issue is whether the anathemas applied to Protestants in the 16th Century and the answer would be “yes” since 16th Century Protestants had been formally members of the Catholic church at some point in their life.

    Yet another issue is what is the Catholic church’s position on those who knowingly reject the Church’s position on justification or the sacraments or, more fundamentally, that the Church was instituted by Christ for salvation?

    I’m afraid on this one you have minimized the importance of the term “knowingly.” To say that something is “known” in this context is to say that it is the judgment of a person’s conscience, and, therefore, must be obeyed. Catechism para. 1776. “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right.”(para. 1778.) “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.” (para. 1790)

    Hence, if, for example, you know in the exercise of your “properly formed” conscience that the Church is the instrument of salvation and yet you choose stay outside the church for reasons which you know in the exericse of your properly formed conscience are insufficient, then you would “condemn” yourself.

    I’m sorry if this account looks like it filled with “moveable factors”, but it kind of has to since it is based on a “virtue ethics” that puts the obligation of developing prudence, fortitude, temperance and justice on the individual.

    Notice, incidentally, that this account works the other way as well. If a Catholics exercise of his “properly formed” conscience leads him to the conclusion that the some other church is the true church and the instrument of salvation, then that Catholic would “condemn” himself by staying in the church for reasons that his “properly formed” conscience says are insufficient.

    I’m certain that this answer doesn’t provide the ” bright line” distinction that can be captured in a 10 second sound bite, but that is the way that virtue ethics of the kind shaped by Aquinas in reliance on Aristotle work.

    Like

  19. Dozie wrote:

    Who makes the judgment whether Mr. Sungenis “has fully complied with the letter and spirit of the direction” other than his bishop? Why do you equivocate about the existence of “some controversy”? The man is fully Catholic until his bishop or some other competent authority in the Catholic Church (not from the Protestant community) decides he is not. To suggest otherwise is simply a wicked thing to do.

    I do no dispute that Mr. Sungenis is fully Catholic.

    Nonetheless, the question was whether or not Mr. Sungenis is in the mainstream of Catholic apologetics and therefore can be trusted as a reliable source reflecting mainstream Catholic opinion. The fact that his Bishop has gone to the extraordinary step of instructing Mr. Sungenis not to communicate on matters involving the Catholic perspective on Judaism is evidence that he is not in the mainstream.

    I was heartened when Sungenis indicated that he would take his Bishop’s directions on this matter. I would hope that he would incorporate into his worldview the spirit that informs his Bishop’s directions. Nonetheless, I didn’t make up the controversy; the controversy is on the site I linked to.

    Like

  20. Noll is not correct that the difference between Rome and the Reformation on justification is largely one of semantics. Chapter VII of CT06 states explicitly that the sole “formal cause” of justification is “not that [righteousness] whereby He Himself is righteous, but that whereby He makes us righteous,” and then goes on to define “making righteous” in terms of moral transformation.

    In plain terms, that means that God accepts you as righteous solely because he has made you intrinsically morally upright, and not for the sake of his own righteousness, whether that be his essential righteousness or his righteousness in the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is not merely a tangential issue in the Reformation controversy that was otherwise semantical, it is the issue. And if you read the Catechism carefully, you will find that nothing has actually changed.

    Al Kimel, after he went to Rome, did a large series of posts on the fundamental differences between Rome and the Reformation and how anyone appealing to JDDJ is missing the heart of the matter. Unfortunately, I can’t find those posts.

    Like

  21. “I don’t think anyone thus far has mentioned that Sungenis was ordered by his bishop to cease discussing his views on Jews or Judaism. Sungenis initially indicated his willingness to acquiesce to the church’s authority on this issue, but there is some controversy about whether he has fully complied with the letter and spirit of the directions he received.”

    Who makes the judgment whether Mr. Sungenis “has fully complied with the letter and spirit of the direction” other than his bishop? Why do you equivocate about the existence of “some controversy”? The man is fully Catholic until his bishop or some other competent authority in the Catholic Church (not from the Protestant community) decides he is not. To suggest otherwise is simply a wicked thing to do.

    Now, the question was about the correctness of what the man said, instead it was quickly diverted, without substantive evidence, to a question of the extent to which the man is or is not Catholic.

    Like

  22. Folks may also find of interest my various ruminations on the theme of justification. Some were written while I was still Anglican; others were written after my reception into the Catholic Church.

    Like

  23. [I tried to post this yesterday but it appears to have gotten lost in cyberspace.]

    On the question of grace, I have found a little book published over forty years ago quite helpful: *The Theology of Grace and the Oecumenical Movement* by Charles Moeller and Gerard Philips. I wrote a series of short articles summarizing the book for my now defunct blog earlier this year. Folks may find the series of interest.

    Like

  24. Cardinal Cassidy, the papal envoy to the Evangelicals has a better batting average with ecumenically-minded Protestants and especially with evangelicals. He got Chuck Colson and co to sign ECT I & II by regaling them with stories about how he was born again. That’s literally all it took for many of them. Who knew Roman Catholics love Jesus and had a personal religious experience of him?

    As to the LWF, well, ask the confessional Lutherans, who actually still read the Book of Concord and who believe it what they think of the Joint Declaration and they will tell you that only Lutherans who’ve been smoking joints will think that it resolves the crisis created by Trent and reaffirmed by the Catechism.

    The only way forward is for Rome to renounce magisterial doctrine not to perform the sorts of slights of hand that have been occurring since Regensburg.

    http://www.wscal.edu/clark/regensburg.php

    rsc

    Like

  25. As we are wondering whether the views of Mr. Sungenis are to be preferred over the Catholic construal of justification found in the JDDJ, may I throw into the pot the following two statements.

    First, the JDDJ Common Statement:

    “1. On the basis of the agreements reached in the Joint Declaration regarding the doctrine of Justification, the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church declare together: “The understanding of the doctrine of justification set forth in this Declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics” (JD 40). On the basis of this consensus the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church declare together: “The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration” (JD 41).

    “2. With reference to the Resolution on the Joint Declaration by the Council of the Lutheran World Federation of 16 June 1998 and the response to the Joint Declaration by the Catholic Church of 25 June 1998 and to the questions raised by both of them, the annexed statement (called “Annex”) further substantiates the consensus reached in the Joint Declaration; thus it becomes clear that the earlier mutual doctrinal condemnations do not apply to the teaching of the dialogue partners as presented in the Joint Declaration.

    “3. The two partners in dialogue are committed to continued and deepened study of the biblical foundations of the doctrine of justification. They will also seek further common understanding of the doctrine of justification, also beyond what is dealt with in the Joint Declaration and the annexed substantiating statement. Based on the consensus reached, continued dialogue is required specifically on the issues mentioned especially in the Joint Declaration itself (JD 43) as requiring further clarification, in order to reach full church communion, a unity in diversity, in which remaining differences would be “reconciled” and no longer have a divisive force. Lutherans and Catholics will continue their efforts ecumenically in their common witness to interpret the message of justification in language relevant for human beings today, and with reference both to individual and social concerns of our times.

    “By this act of signing The Catholic Church and The Lutheran World Federation confirm the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in its entirety.”

    From Cardinal Cassidy’s presentation of the JDDJ:

    “On the Catholic side, the Official Common Statement and the Annex have been approved by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. His Holiness Pope John Paul II has been informed accordingly and has given his blessing for the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, together with the Official Common Statement with its attached Annex on the date and in the place to be decided by the two partners.”

    The JDDG may not enjoy infallible status, but the Catholic views expressed within it certainly enjoy the official approval of the Catholic Church!

    Like

  27. The iMonk said: 1. I don’t read or listen to Mark Shea. Not sure how I wound up linked over there.

    I think he got introduced to some of your posts here and just liked what he read. In fact, that’s how I originally found you…from him posting an excerpt and link to one of your articles here.

    Just thought you’d like to know.

    Like

  28. Fr. Alvin makes a very informed and good will answer. It is worth anyone’s time to follow his posts if they truly want to become more informed from someone with a healthy and goodwill motivation.

    Something to think about. When the Pope leaves room for people to form and teach some of their own variations on issues its proclaimed that “you can come up with anything you want to” as a catholic. If the reigns are brought in on someone than its said that “you cant think for yourself as a catholic but only what Rome tells you”. Some will never be happy.

    Like

  29. As I read this thread, I am comforted (if that’s the right word) to see that the old “two Baptists, three opinions” joke applies equally to Roman Catholics.

    Like

  30. Fr Kimel,

    Thanks for your reply.

    Of course, what I was trying to get at was the different approaches to defining “grace”, which has been somewhat overlooked, even in the official dialogues. Protestants just need to read the relevant paragraphs of CCC to discover that there are two quite different sytems of thought (and life!) at work here. Too often we hear a RC say “we are saved by grace” and hastily conclude that the Reformation dispute is over.

    I think your list of references on the justification debate is right on the mark, with the exception of Newman’s work, which is muddled imv.

    Pax!

    Like

  31. I haven’t yet listened to the program, but I would be reluctant to ascribe any substantive weight to Sungenis’ analysis of Trent. I don’t think anyone thus far has mentioned that Sungenis was ordered by his bishop to cease discussing his views on Jews or Judaism. Sungenis initially indicated his willingness to acquiesce to the church’s authority on this issue, but there is some controversy about whether he has fully complied with the letter and spirit of the directions he received.

    So, it would seem to me, at least, that Sungenis doesn’t reflect the Catholic mainstream in apologetics with respect to relationships with other faiths, again, at least.

    Concerning the anathemas and the doctrine of extra ecclesia nulla salvation, obviously this doctrine was not invented at Trent. I listened to a lecture series by the Reformed Theological University from Itunes were the professor freely conceded that this doctrine was extant thoughout the first three hundred years of the church.

    Likewise, the doctrine of “invincible ignorance” – which might include an obstruction of the will or mind by cultural reasons outside of the individual’s control – long predates Trent. The Catholic church acknowledges saints who were Arians; Aquinas has a doctrine of invincible ignorance in his Summa; and the Feeneyite heresy – which sounds a lot like what Sungenis may be embracing – was condemned by Pius XII, well before Vatican II.

    For what it’s worth, I believe that the anathemas are legally binding only on Catholics who apostatize knowing that the Catholic church is the church founded by Christ. This applies, in the Catholic view, to Protestants: “They cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it (cf. LG 14).”

    Like

  32. Fr Kimel, What do you mean by “grace”?

    Mark, all I meant to say is that you won’t find a lot of Catholic reflection explicitly devoted to the theme of justification, but you will find a lot (and I mean a lot) of Catholic reflection devoted to the theme of grace. Grace is the topic to turn to if you pick up, e.g., Rahner’s Sacramentum Mundi.

    Like

  33. In some ways, Michael, I think that you are asking the impossible. Catholics, to (possibly mis)quote Chesterton, agree on everything. It’s about everything else that they disagree. In other words, what individual Catholics (such as Sungenis) may think is not binding on the Church. The Magisterium determines what Church teaching is. But, that said, I do understand that you wonder if Trent and VII are even compatible. If they are not, then why bother?

    So, I’ll take a shot at your questions, and try not to be too verbose.

    1)Anathema is such a loaded word. I believe that it can be translated as “accursed”, but in old Canon Law, it was a specific type of excommunication, with specific penalties, blah, blah, blah. Anathema no longer exists in the new code of Canon Law, so I will consider it here simply as excommunication (no, Canon Law is not considered infallible–it can change). Excommunication implies one must first be IN communion, so, I think Tope is correct–it only applies to Catholics. In other words, as I think Dr Sungenis explained reasonably well, you must first BELIEVE that the teaching of the Catholic Church on justification is TRUE. If you don’t believe it is true, then you cannot be “knowledgeably” (otherwise known as obstinately) rejecting truth. Therefore, as I assume you do not believe it, the penalties would not apply to you. What excommunication is NOT, is the declaration that the one who is excommunicated is going to Hell. Excommunication is a “medicinal” penalty, intended to call one to repentance. The Church has always known that She does not judge souls–that is for God alone. She can recognize that specific souls are certainly in Heaven, but never does She declare that anyone is in Hell. Her job is to teach the faith, as given by Christ, and hand it down generation by generation, that all may have the hope of salvation, which is by Christ alone.

    2)Yes, I think “separated brethren” is an honest term, as explained above. Protestants are our brothers in Christ, as we all believe that Jesus Christ is The Way, The Truth and The Life; the second person of the Holy Trinity; The salvation of the world. (BTW, I had training in the Catholic faith prior to VII, and at no time was it taught to me that people who were not Catholic were automatically going to Hell, nor that all Catholics were automatically going to Heaven. Just sayin’.)

    3)I’m pretty sure Sungenis is wrong here about Fitzmeyer and Brown, but, as I said, I’m not a theologian. Frankly, as Sungenis apparently also attended a Protestant seminary, I’m not sure how he can accuse others who did the same of being too liberal??? The only theologian that I have read is Joseph Ratzinger, and I have not read those writings that are more sophisticated (IOW, written for an audience of theologians–I’m frankly not that smart, or well-educated!) Luckily, there are many books/writings of his that are accessible to us that are “theologically challenged”) 🙂

    4) Sungenis is not generally considered “mainstream” Catholicism. He is considered in the “rad-Trad” camp who thinks that the Jews are trying to infiltrate and control the Church. And, seriously, geo-centric?? I’ll admit, I didn’t hear too much in this broadcast with which I disagreed (purgatory as “punishment” was one), but I wouldn’t go to him to determine what the Church teaches.

    5) Honestly, I don’t know. My personal feeling is that even if the justification question were settled definitively between Protestants and Catholics, there are still significant theological differences between us (some of which you have discussed on this blog) that still need resolution. I will say that I pray for the day that we will all be One, as Jesus prayed. We all need to work for that goal, by true dialogue, in charity.

    God bless you, Michael. Your blog has given me much to ponder. It is one of my favorites. Congrats, BTW, on the sabbatical. May you deepen your faith and grow ever closer to Jesus Christ during that time.

    Like

  35. One of the genius things about the RCC is that you can choose from several strands of spirituality and doctrine that fall within the pale of Catholic Orthodoxy and kind of cobble together a faith that fits you.

    Like

  36. This is thought that I don’t think many people in this debate give much thought to.

    That is, it is possible for the Roman Catholic Church to be wrong in its teachings on various subjects (auricular confession, purgatory, papal authority and infallibility, mariology, etc.) and for the Reformed/Evangelical concept of sola fide to be wrong as well.

    Proving the Catholic dogmas mentioned wrong would not prove sola fide to be correct. Nor would proving sola fide to be wrong prove the RCC to be the true church.

    The Seventh Day Adventists are good examples of ones who believe this. They don’t believe in Justification by faith alone, and they are clearly antiCatholic as well. The Anabaptists would be another example of this. According to a lot of Reformed teachers N.T. Wright would fall into this category as well (and other NPP Protestants as well).

    Just some food for thought.

    Like

  37. As far as what the mainstream view among lay Catholics is, which was one of your questions, I can assure you that the average American Catholic tends more to the universalistic side of things than to the exclusionary when it comes to the question of salvation.

    I guess I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to get at. The teaching is clear. The fact that some Catholics misunderstand or ignore or distort seems to be besides the point. There will always be people who say X or Y is so when it ain’t necessarily so. So what? The Church can teach certain things as doctrine, but she can’t force people to understand or agree with or believe those things.

    There are some who overstate the degree of unity that exists in the Church – or rather, misunderstand or misrepresent the nature of that unity. Catholicism is a big tent that accommodates diverse groups of people with very different ideas and commitments. Our unity ultimately stems from the Eucharist.

    Like

  38. Tope:

    As I said in the post, the problem isn’t what some Catholics say. You are quite clear and I agree. The problem is what OTHER Catholics say. It can’t be both ways. I can’t be separated brethren and condemned outside of Christ.

    It’s some clarity in regard to Trent and V2 that many of us can’t seem to find. It’s like the RCC has denominations 🙂

    Like

  39. Trent is for Catholics? So I can knowingly reject the RC view without consequence because I’m a Protestant in a sea of error?

    You have made it very clear that you believe Catholic teaching and practice to be wrong on many points. I don’t find this offensive. As Chesterton says, a bigot isn’t someone who believes s/he is right – any sane person believes that. A bigot is someone who doesn’t understand how anyone else could come to be wrong.

    Catholics and Protestants both believe they’re right. The question you’re asking, it seems to me, is about what the consequences will be if Protestants turn out to be wrong and Catholics happen to be right. What the Catholic Church teaches is that God doesn’t punish people for being sincerely wrong. Personally I hope and believe this is true regardless of which of us happen to have gotten it more or less correct. But I don’t think it’s offensive for the Catholic Church to teach that Protestants are wrong, or vice versa.

    Like

  40. I agree with those who contend that Sungenis does not represent the Catholic mainstream. He is one Catholic voice. His book Not by Faith Alone should definitely be read and considered. But his views do not stand within the mainstream teaching of the Catholic Church.

    The JDDJ may not enjoy magisterial authority within the Catholic Church–Catholics may, and some do, criticize it (see, e.g., Christopher Malloy, Engrafted into Christ and Avery Cardinal Dulles)–yet it does enjoy some level of unspecified theological authority. One may certainly believe and teach that the Joint Declaration faithfully represents the teaching of the Catholic Church. Consider, e.g., the judgment of Fr Edward Oakes, the English translator of so many writings of Hans Urs von Balthsasar:

    “Based on that Declaration, I hold that Catholics can no longer regard the issue of justification as inherently church-dividing. I would further add that once the Vatican formally signed it, Trent must henceforth be seen through the lens of that Joint Statement. Of course, neither that statement nor later joint statements, should they come about, can be interpreted to countermand Trent either. But isn’t that the job of the Magisterium to make sure they don’t? And once the Vatican signs on to a joint statement, should that not become the primary doctrinal determinant for interpreting Trent in light of Vatican II? Come to think of it, should not Trent always be interpreted through the lens of Vatican II as well?”

    Sungenis looks like a person who hasn’t quite gotten the hang on how dogma works and develops in the Catholic Church.

    I strongly recommend that Protestants seeking to understand the developing teaching of the Catholic Church on justification should avoid internet apologists. As far as I can tell, most of them have not taken the time to immerse themselves in the literature. Over at another site, I have made some suggestions for start-up reading.

    I also agree with the commentator above who states that Catholics really do not think a lot about justification. This is true. Neither did the Church Fathers. What Catholics do think and write a lot about is grace.

    Like

  41. Several replies to several comments.

    1. I don’t read or listen to Mark Shea. Not sure how I wound up linked over there.

    2. Michael Horton interview Sungenis.

    3. I am not an expert on Catholic apologetics. I don’t listen to it or read it at all. Doesn’t have a good effect on me.

    4. I was not aware of anything about Sungenis other than what is on his web site/bio and that Michael Horton was interviewing him.

    5. Are you folks who are suggesting Sungenis was a bad choice saying that his description of Trent is not true?

    6. Trent is for Catholics? So I can knowingly reject the RC view without consequence because I’m a Protestant in a sea of error?

    Like

  42. iMonk, I think I first found your blog through Mark Shea’s “Catholic and Enjoying It” blogroll, so I’m surprised that you don’t know that he’s a fairly moderate convert who has posted extensively on his travails with Sugenis.
    I read many Catholic apologia blogs and the above posters are correct in pointing out that Sugenis is at least very close to being a sedavanctist and waaay out of the mainstream of official Catholic teaching. It is also correct to point out his anti-Semitism, which has been at odds with the Catechetical teachings for awhile (alas, not long enough) now.
    Let’s hear Noll have a discussion with small “o”rthodox Catholic layfolk such as Amy Welborn and Mark Shea. I would truly be interested. But Sugenis is not representative of Catholic thought, except that of disaffected rad trads who feel that Vatican II was the fruit of Satan.

    Like

  43. I think Tope makes a good point. Between Catholics and Protestants the Justification conversation need not be about Faith Alone or Faith and Works because if we’re honest we’re all saying the same thing: having Faith implies living that faith in the context of Love.

    The main difference I see between the Protestants and Catholics regarding justification is the protestant teaching of impuation (I don’t know if all protestants teach this or not) vs. the Catholic one of Transformation.

    Like

  44. I met and had lunch with Sugenis a few years ago (along with a couple of aquaintances, one of whom is a Catholic convert), and while I don’t remember all the specifics of the conversation, I definitely came away from it with the impression that Sugenis is not representative of the mainstream of Catholic apologetics and is really quite fixated on imterpreting Catholic teaching about Protestantism in the least generous possible manner. ALso, when you factor in the fact that Sugenis rejects heliocentrism (or at least did at one time – I cannot find his website now), you can see this this is a person who is far from the mainstream.

    Like

  45. First of all, this whole Trent argument is a strawman, really. Anathemas/excommunications are for Catholics. They don’t apply to people who aren’t Catholics. Trent was a response to people who were apostatizing and teaching what was seen as heresy. It does not apply in the same way to people who have never been Catholic, or even to people who were raised Catholic but never really understood or believed the faith.

    Also, I strongly encourage people to actually read the documents of the council of Trent. I think many Protestants would be surprised by how much of it they can agree with. I know I was, prior to my confirmation as a Catholic. This picking and choosing of one paragraph out of a large document doesn’t really do justice to either side of the discussion.

    I think Mark Noll is partially right. I do think the disagreement between Catholics and Protestants over justification is partly, even mostly, one of semantics. Both sides seem to agree that good works are a part of salvation in some way – either as an evidence of it, or as part of “being saved.” Both sides agree that salvation is impossible apart from God’s grace. So it seems to me to be a distinction without a difference to argue that faith alone saves on the one hand or faith and works save on the other – since either way, salvation is all about divine grace and works will be present.

    But while I think the difference between Catholics and Protestants is often smaller than both think, it’s also bigger than we tend to think, as well. One of the consequences of the Catholic understanding of salvation, of grace, and of the Incarnation is that we believe that people, places, and objects can be holy – and therefore, can be venerated. This incarnational theology is, in my mind, what really distinguishes Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and some Anglican or Lutheran churches from most of Protestantism. And it really is a profound difference. Coming to a truce on the question of justification is not going to make this disagreement go away.

    Robert Sungenis is far from representative of “conservative Catholics.” To the contrary, he’s widely considered to be a crank who’s only a few steps short of outright heresy. Not only does he reject clear Catholic teaching on the place of Protestants in the Church, but he also holds virulently anti-Semitic views and insists that Christians are obligated to believe in geocentrism. He has been rebuked on more than one occasion by both lay Catholics and clerics. In short, he’s a nut.

    The question of the place of Protestants (and Orthodox) in the universal Church is addressed very explicitly and I think quite clearly in the Catechism and other Church documents. The brief answers to your questions are that no, Sungenis is not correct, and yes, Catholic doctrine does have a different way for accounting for people who have been raised Protestant. Separated Brethren is, in my opinion, an accurate, honest, and sincere description of how the Catholic Church sees Protestant communities. Both Sungenis and his views on this and many topics are far from mainstream, even in “conservative” wings of Catholicism. I imagine he has a following among some of the extreme traditionalists, but they aren’t mainstream either.

    Like

  46. I’m going to call myself Mark 2 since there is another Mark also posting, although previously I have posted here as just Mark – sorry to confuse you.

    On the issue of JDDJ, I think it is advisable to be wary of assigning the Lutheran signees to the liberal camp and writing JDDJ off because of that. The American dialogues on which it was largely based were a solid discussion of the issues – it is avaliable in printed form for anyone who wants to check it out for themselves (Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, Justification by Faith, 1983). These Lutherans actually got the Catholics to concede in JDDJ that a basically evangelical understanding of justification was not subject to an anathema. No small achievement.
    (For a fair assessment of JDDJ, the best full-length study I have read is by Anthony N.S. Lane, ‘Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue, An Evangelical Assessment’ (T. & T. Clark, 2002). Before anyone makes a final judgment on JDDJ, they ought to read this work.)

    But did JDDJ achieve what it claims – *consensus* in the basic truths of justification? No, I don’t think so. Convergence – yes, partly because some of the best Catholic NT scholarship now concedes Luther had a point; but not consensus, not the sort of consensus that would facilitate ecclesial fellowship should all the other issues ever be resolved.
    Let’s face it, if that basic consensus actually was reached, the implications for RC church life would be stupendous. But JDDJ hasn’t gotten much traction for reform in RC ecclesial life, and I don’t think it ever will (so, for e.g. you can still gain indulgences by going on pilgrimages etc, and the whole synergistic cult of Mary goes on, and the whole synergistic cult of political theology for that matter), because Catholics, other than ultra-conservative formerly Protestant apologists, that is – just don’t seem to be interested in the question of justification at all. They live within a different paradigm.
    That’s why I think Mark Noll’s comment is completely unhelpful and even dangerous because it oversimplifies the problem. Yes, in the RC scheme, justification is subsumed into sanctification, but to the point almost of *non-existence* in regard to its outworking in RC piety. And therein lies the problem that 30 years of discussion hasn’t overcome: beneath the question of ecumenical agreements on this or that doctrine lies the problem of profoundly different structures of thought.

    Like

  47. The Joint Declaration isn’t accepted by confessional Lutheran bodies like the LCMS. Since only liberal Lutherans who weren’t exactly loyal to their confessions in the first have signed onto it, I’m not sure how useful it to gauge changes in Catholic-Protestant relations.

    rr

    Like

  48. The Joint Declaration is typical of my problems here. The Lutherans agreeing to this aren’t defending the reformation understanding of justification, and the significance of their buying into this isn’t helpful at all.

    And to the person who is “surprised” I don’t know various things….I guess my problem is that I can read the catechism and V2, but I can also read Trent. Trent says that I am anathema. But all my V2 sources have different rhetoric altogether.

    Like

  50. Isn’t Sungenis a Sedavacantist?

    For sure he’s believes the sun revolves around the earth, right? Isn’t that what Mark Shea is always taking him to task for? And he’s a rabid anti-Semite?

    Why is he being trotted out as the representative Catholic?

    Like

  51. If there is perspecuity in scripture, there is none in Roman Catholicism. Sungenis demonstrates the elasticity and latitude of interpretation within the “unity” of Catholic teaching.

    The purpose and intent of Trent was clearly to mark Protestants as rebels, outside the church and damned to hell. To halt the Reformation in it’s tracks.

    Now, modern R.C.s interpret these same anathemas with such vaguesness that would make a White House Press Secretary blush. If Horton had had this discussion in 1600, there would have been no hesitation on the part of his Catholic counterpart – yes – you are going to hell for rejecting Trent.

    This very vagueness and variety of interpretations is why I cannot buy the myth of the one, unified Catholic Church. If the Church is unified, it is only because it allows such an incredible amount of latitude in intepreting the Catechism. If “liberals” like Raymond Brown don’t speak for the Church, as Sungenis said, why are they not silenced? And if Sungenis can’t adequately speak for the Church, as John said, why doesn’t some Bishop tell him to stop?

    Like

  52. I am very surprised you don’t already know at least the asnwers to some of these.

    Sungenis is on the very far fringe of Catholicism, and I cannot think of one organization off hand that currently recommends him, as he apparetnly alilnates during theological dust-ups.

    As for Brown and Fitz., they are the current heroes of Catholic biblical scholarship. Only traditionalists or former-Evangelicals who know better ever question there bona fides. Ratzinger said he wishes the Church had ten Raymond Browns, and while Scott Hahn wanted Ignatius Press to reprint his fisking of Brown, I think those plans were quietly shelved.

    Like

  53. I’m a Catholic Seminarian with a passing interest in the realm of apologetics. My impression is that Sungenis would not exactly be considered mainstream in Catholic apologetics, and certainly not in theological matters. My impression is vague, though, based not on reading him, but comments by those I respect about him. Wikipedia (for what it’s worth reports that he has courted controversy over geocentrism and his opinions on questions relating to the Jews.

    Regarding Catholic thinking on justification there was a Joint declaration by Catholic Church and the Lutheran Worldwide federation a few years ago. It is available on the vatican website here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/
    chrstuni/documents/
    rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

    I think it might be a better place to start than with Sungenis (or any individual apologist for that matter).

    Like

Leave a comment