Swimming the Tiber 3: Whence Cometh Scripture, Thither Go I

Written by on · Leave a Comment

Where does Scripture actually come from? The Holy Spirit, of course. But by what means? Did the Spirit grasp a pen and write it down? Did Christ? Did the Father? Of course not. No one of reason adheres to such claims. (I include certain heretics when I say “no one of reason.”)

So by what human means do the Scriptures come down to us? For when I absolve God of their physical origin, I leave only two options: lesser spirits and human beings. God forbid I attribute Holy Writ to demonic possession; loyal angels do not possess the bodies of men; and spirits by definition have no physical form. That leaves only human action as the physical source of Scripture. But which human actions?

I shall not concern myself with the lengthy debates of the authorship of individual books. Suffice it to say that I accept (as I always have) the traditional attributions of the Books of Holy Scripture, and I will continue to adhere to Church teaching in this matter, should the Church (in her wisdom) alter the specifics of those attributions (as it has with the author of Hebrews, for example). The most relevant question, after all, is not the author of individual passages of Scripture; such disputation does not harm the whole body of work, as its detractors suggest, but helps us better to understand the context. Instead, the relevant question is the compilation of Scripture. If we can trust the compilation of Scripture, then we can trust Scripture, disregarding whether Paul wrote Hebrews, whether it was indeed a letter by design (or a sermon made into a letter), and other minutiae (including therein, for example, the exact date of the composition of Isaiah 39 versus Isaiah 40, or Isaiah 55 versus Isaiah 56).

How, then, has Scripture been compiled? The official compilation for Catholics is most frequently identified as the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. Protestants identify this as canonizing their New Testament, but trace their Old Testament to the Judaic Council of Jamnia in the late 1st century AD (nevermind that this council may or may not have occurred, and nevermind that any post-Christ Jewish canon would necessarily oppose doctrines of those upstart anti-Jewish Christians). To reinforce their removal of the so-called Apocrypha, Protestants insist upon the principle of universal acceptance, pointing to the Jewish canon as authoritative for the Old Testament.

Again, nevermind that Jewish authorities, by the second century, would have opposed any books which reinforced Christian doctrine over Jewish doctrine.

Other arguments exist. For example, “We should only accept those Old Testament books which we have in their original Hebrew.” Well, this is quite the misnomer. In the first place, we don’t have any texts in their entirety in the original Hebrew. The closest we have is the Masoretic text, which has no significant extant copies older than the Aleppo Codex from AD 930, though a few smaller pieces remain from earlier. This is based on Jewish oral tradition, and generally follows older Hebrew texts, but has notable differences from several of the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts. This makes it unreliable as an ultimate source of “original” Hebrew, though it may well be close enough. But the real problem is that demanding Hebrew originals for, say, the “Apocrypha,” is impossible–most scholars agree that the Maccabees, among others, were originally composed in Greek. So any Hebrew versions would be hardly original. For an example a little closer to home, consider that in the Book of Daniel, the original language was nearly half Aramaic (Daniel 2:4-7:28), with the rest being Hebrew. Should we dismiss those chapters as non-canonical as well?

Then there is the appeal to authority. “Jerome repudiated the Apocrypha!” it is claimed. (I think there is a certain irony in Protestants appealing to St. Jerome, but I will return to that in a later post.) Jerome’s preference not to include a translation of the Deuterocanon in his Vulgate depended on a lack of original Hebrew texts; as we have already pointed out, and as it was made clear to Jerome, that isn’t entirely relevant. Jerome went on to translate the Deuterocanon anyway, and included it in the Vulgate. He did not do so under protest, but rather willingly. Is the short-term disputation of Jerome more powerful than his lifelong acceptance of Church teaching? Certainly not, lest St. Augustine’s tryst with Manichaeism eliminate his later baptism, ordination, and saintly life.

The other saints, appealed to in a similar manner, likewise accepted–or even promulgated–the canon put forth at the Synod of Hippo, then ratified at the Councils of Carthage and by the papacy in the decades to follow. Those Church fathers whose opinions are so highly valued–St. Augustine by the Calvinists, St. Athanasius by all who acknowledge the divinity of Christ, and so on–agreed not with the Protestant canon, but with the one decided by the Church. The one decided altogether, at once, Old Testament and New. I have heard Protestants say that the Holy Spirit worked through the Church, despite her faults, to establish the New Testament canon at these points. Does the Holy Spirit often exert influence in one sentence, then fail to do so in the next? Does the Holy Spirit direct a single document put forward by an ecumenical council to be both accurate (of the New Testament) and heretically inaccurate (of the Old)? On the contrary, as is appropriate, when a document is heretical, all of its statements are thrown into doubt, and none are kept sure unless confirmed by some other method.

But there was never a method that confirmed the New Testament canon without confirming at least some of the Deuterocanon within the Old. Is the Holy Spirit so weak that he should fail to establish the canon in even one place throughout the history of the Church? Is the Church so weak that the gates of hell should overtake her with a false canon of Scripture? Certainly not.

The typical response is to discount the historical canon altogether. The canon is reached by careful examination under a set of principles–apostolic authority and consistent content, for example. The Protestant canon, then, is never closed; but it is simultaneously never really questioned. I have heard of no Protestants adding the Shepherd of Hermas, once treated as canonical by several Church Fathers (but rejected by the Church under the authority of the Holy Spirit). The Didache, likewise, has never been added. There is no outcry for other documents of certain apostolic authority, such as the two letters of St. Paul to the Corinthians which are no longer extant; unlike the desperate search for the remains of Noah’s ark, there has been no concerted Protestant effort to find what may well be valuable canonical documents.

How many times have you genuinely questioned the canon of the New Testament, only to arrive at exactly the same list as the Church? Better yet, how often have you arrived at a different list? No, on the contrary, Protestants–excluding heretics who embrace Gnostic gospels–flatly and implicitly accept the canon of the New Testament put forth by the Church… while still rejecting her authority on the Old Testament.

I thought and acted in this way for years.

And you may do so even now.

So I ask you: if not from the Holy Spirit through the Church, whence cometh Scripture?

Last Post:
The Rules of Faith
Next Post:
Papists and Popery

Romans 7

Written by on · Leave a Comment
This is a literal translation of an ancient Greek text. It has also been cross-posted on 31Prayers.com. For more information on how to read this post and what everything means, see the relevant page on that site.

 
1Or do [you] not perceive, brothers—for [I] speak [to those who] know law—that the law is lord of a person for as long a time as [he] lives? 2For the marriedlit. under-a-man woman has been bound by law to the living man; but if, on the other hand, the man dies, [she] has been left free here and in verse 6, lit. left idlefrom the law of the man. 3Then, therefore, with the man living, if [she] comes to be with a different man, [she] operates asidiomatically, is called adulterous; but if, on the other hand, the man dies, [she] is free from the law, in order that [she] may not bearticular infinitive in the genitive showing purpose adulterous, having come to be with a different man. 4And so, my brothers, you also were put to death ὥστε + indicative verb is a result clauseto the law through the body of Christ,a in order that you may come to be with another,lit. a different [one]εἰς + articular infinitive usually expresses purpose, but may also express result; in this case, the alternative translation would be: so that you come to be with another [that is,] with the [one] having been awakened out of [the] dead, in order that [we] may bear fruit for God. 5For when [we] were in the flesh, the misfortunes of the errors,here and throughout, (sins) the [misfortunes] through the law, were being energizedAs is typical, here we have a neuter plural subject (παθήματα, misfortunes) taking a singular verb (ἐνηργεῖτο). in our limbs, in order to bear fruit for death;b 6but now, on the other hand, [we] were left free from the law,c [we] dying in that with which [we] were being held back, so that we are slaves ὥστε + accusative-infinitive clause, indicating resultin a newness of spirit and not [in] an antiquity of writing.(letter)d

7What, therefore, shall [we] say? The law [is] an error? May [it] not come to be; but [I] would not know the error if not through law;In this clause and immediately following, these conditionals are simple past conditionals. Because of the negative construction, the difference in English between this and a counterfactual conditional is minimal. for [I] would also not know the desire (coveting)if the law did not say, “Thou will not desire.”(covet)e 8But the error, having seized a starting point through the commandment, works athere and throughout, (achieves by labor) every desire in me; for apart from [the] law, error [is] dead.f 9But I was living apart from [the] law then, but with the commandment having come, the error returned to life, 10but I died, and it was found [that] for me, the commandment, the [one] unto life,g this [one] [was] unto death; 11for the error, having seized a starting point through the commandment, deceived meh and, through it,i.e., the commandment [the error] killed [me]. 12And so the law [on the one hand] [is] holy and the commandment [is] holy and just and good.i

13Therefore did the good [thing] for me become death [for me]? May [it] not come to be; but [it was] the error, in order that [it] may appear as error, through the good [thing] working at death for me, in order that the error may become surpassingly lit. according to an overthrowingerroneous through the commandment.j 14For we knowSome manuscripts: on the one hand, [I] know; this differs from the text as given by a space between letters that the law is spiritual, but on the other hand, I am fleshy, having been sold under the error.This construction could also mean that the error is the agent of the sale, i.e., that Paul was sold by the errork 15For what [I] work at, [I] do not know; for what [I] want, this [I] do not achieve, but what [I] hate, this [I] do. 16But if [I] do not do this [thing] which [I] want, [I] consent to the law that [it is] beautiful. 17But now, I no longer work at it, but the error dwelling in me [works at it]. 18For [I] know that a good [thing] does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh;l for the wishing is close at handhere and in verse 21, (available) for me, but on the other hand, working at the beautiful [thing] [is] not [close at hand];Some manuscripts: [I] do not know [how to work at the beautiful thing]; others: [I] do not find [working at the beautiful thing] 19for [I] do not do a good [thing] which [I] want, but [I] achieve this bad [thing] which [I] do not want. 20But if [I] do this [thing] which ISome manuscripts omit do not want, I no longer work at it, but the error dwelling in me. 21[I] find, then, the law, for me, wanting to do the beautiful [thing], that for me the bad [thing] is close at hand; 22for [I] rejoice together with the law of God Some manuscripts: of the mind; others omitaccording to the interior person, 23but [I] see a different law in my limbs, warring against the law of my mindm and taking me prisoner in the law of the error, the [law] being in my limbs. 24I [am] a miserable person; who will save(set free); lit. protect / cover me out the body of this death?or this body of death; word placement suggests the translation as given, but this alternative sounds more natural in English and may still get the point across 25But grace [be] to God through Jesus Christ our lord.Some manuscripts: [there is] the grace of God through Jesus Christ our lord; others: [there is] the grace of [the] lord through Jesus Christ our lord; others: grace to our lord Jesus Christ; others: [I] give thanks to God through Jesus Christ our lord.n Then, therefore, I myself am a slave to [the] law of God in my mind on the one hand, but on the other hand [I am a slave] to [the] law of error in my flesh.

Cross-references:
a And so, my…body of Christ: cf. Colossians 2:14
b in order to…fruit for death: cf. Romans 5:21; 8:6, 13
c but now, on…from the law: cf. Romans 8:2
d so that we…antiquity of writing: cf. Romans 6:4
e Thou will not desire: cf. Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21; 4 Maccabees 2:5; Romans 13:9
f for apart from…error [is] dead: cf. Romans 5:13
g the commandment, the…[one] unto life: cf. Leviticus 18:5
h for the error…commandment, deceived me: cf. Genesis 3:13; Hebrews 3:13
i verse 12: cf. I Timothy 1:8
j [it was] the…through the commandment: cf. Romans 5:20
k I am fleshy…under the error: cf. Psalm 51:5; John 3:6
l For [I] know…in my flesh: cf. Genesis 6:5; 8:21
m a different law…of my mind: cf. Galatians 5:7; James 4:1; I Peter 2:11
n But grace [be]…Christ our lord: cf. I Corinthians 15:57

Swimming the Tiber 2: The Rules of Faith

Written by on · Leave a Comment

It is obvious that tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record. The man who quotes some German historian against the tradition of the Catholic Church, for instance, is strictly appealing to aristocracy. He is appealing to the superiority of one expert against the awful authority of the mob. […] Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death.

– G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, “The Ethics of Elfland”

I have, in my finite wisdom, decided to begin with one of the most challenging topics for any Protestant trying to understand the Catholic perspective. Well, I say “any Protestant”; what I really mean is anyone from the evangelical denominations. The challenge is this: to set aside the sola in sola Scriptura and recognize the authority of sacred Tradition and sacred Church.

I have chosen to start here because acknowledging Tradition (and, by extension, the Church) is crucial to grasping the entire Catholic faith. Catholicism hinges on understanding that Tradition and the Church are just as much rules of our faith as Scripture. But before I delve into that reasoning, let me start where I, personally, started: not just sola Scriptura, but something like solissima Scriptura.

The sola Scriptura of the Reformers placed Scripture first, as the primary rule of faith, but allowed for the introduction of ideas and understandings from Tradition and the Church, provided they did not conflict with Scripture. I began in a place more like John Wesley’s position. He wrote, in the first section of a tract titled Popery Calmly Considered (calmly indeed!), “In all cases, the church is to be judged by Scripture, not the Scripture by the church. And Scripture is the best expounder of Scripture. The best way therefore to understand it is, carefully to compare scripture with scripture, and thereby learn the true meaning of it.”

At first glance, this seems delightfully succinct and self-enclosed. What need is there of Tradition or the Church? We have Scripture. Scripture will interpret Scripture, and all things will be made clear. I held to this view for more than twenty years, perfectly happy in my belief that “Scripture alone” could answer any question of faith. But one thing perturbed me, and ultimately led to the fracturing–and crumbling–of my adherence to this doctrine: if Scripture alone can answer all questions of faith, why didn’t all Protestants agree on questions of doctrine?

Protestant responses to this vary. First, some will say, Protestants all agree on soteriological doctrines: man is saved sola gratia per solam fidem in solo Christo (that is, man is saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone). Right? Well, what about Unitarians (those who deny the Trinity)? Or universalists (those who say that everyone is saved)? They’re Protestants, too. They have the same Bible as everyone else (well, except Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, but I’ll get to that later). Why are they so wrong?

Well, I would have said back in the day, they just are. The Holy Spirit isn’t showing them the true interpretation, or they’re allowing their own biases to interfere with the Spirit’s influence. And that was fine, as I said, for a while. But why would the Holy Spirit exclude anyone who earnestly pursues their faith? Or fail to convict someone who idolizes their own ideas? And beyond that, other doctrines matter, too. In fact, sola Scriptura suggests that all Christian doctrines work together to support our understanding of God, and they all stem from Scripture. And the mere existence of thousands of Christian denominations (not all of them Protestant, as one randomly selected website is careful to point out) suggests disunity of understanding.

And of all the sorrows of Church history, disunity is the greatest. On the night Our Savior was betrayed, he repeated in prayer four times his desire for the unity of the Church (John 17:11, 21-23). And I have never been satisfied by the claim, “But we are one! We all believe in Jesus. Isn’t that enough?” No, said I–it really isn’t. Even if that were enough for salvation (James 2:19 tells us it isn’t), it is a weak marker of unity. I agree with most Jewish faithful that Abraham and Moses existed and were who they claimed; does that make me Jewish? I agree with most atheists that Jupiter and Apollo and Juno are not gods; does that make me an atheist? If not, then why does my mere admission that Christ existed and spoke honestly make me a member of the very Body of Christ, the Church herself, in communion with all the saints and the faithful?

But the deepest problem of using Scripture as the ultimate authority is that it simply isn’t possible. Scripture has nuance, culture, and a deeply ingrained mythos isolated to a culture we do not share, and indeed is spread across hundreds, even thousands, of years of national history. Even if you take every passage literally, you will inevitably encounter passages that must be reconciled–was there one angel at the tomb or two? Were there five thousand men being fed, or only four? Am I still not allowed to get tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), or is that a part of the Law, like circumcision and uncleanness, that “doesn’t really apply anymore”? Is baptism necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38), or is it, too, like circumcision, an imposition of weak men? Is Peter the foundation of the Church (Matthew 16), or must it not be so on account of Luke 22 and I Corinthians 3:11? Like the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8), how can I understand unless someone shows me what it means? And when I go to that person of authority, I must choose who my authority is. It could be my local pastor, or the theology professor at the nearest seminary, or my friend who happens to read Greek and Hebrew, or my parent, or my spouse. But if I don’t like what that person says, I will go to another. And another. Eventually, I may take it upon myself to interpret the passage. Of course, I will pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance; but what assurance do I have that I am not using my bias to interfere with the Spirit’s influence? Or that I am aided by the Spirit at all?

But if, rather, I go to the Church, and the sacred Tradition that has been handed down within the Church from the apostles, who received it from Christ himself, have I not gone as close to the source of all truth as I can in this physical realm? And while, yes, it is possible for God to speak directly into the ear or the mind, it is likewise possible for the devil; and not everyone has the gift of prophecy, and those that are so blessed do not always have the gift of discerning spirits. Reasoned self-doubt is appropriate here; we’re talking about not just my soul, but your soul–all souls. Understanding the Word of God is essential not only to my temporal well-being, but to the eternal well-being of myself, my family, and all those whom I might evangelize. This is too much responsibility to lay on the sinful and finite judgment of one man, who lacks even the auspices of God’s ordination. I am no one; who am I, then, to be the final arbiter of Scripture in my life and the lives of those around me?

These, then, were my thoughts as I approached at last the universal Church, bedecked in glory. She has those auspices. She was ordained by Christ himself, and he promised that the gates of hell would never overtake her. Here, certainly, I could find assurance in my faith.

It was not that simple, of course. I had objections. I said, “II Timothy 3:16-17 tells us that the Scriptures are of utmost importance.” St. Francis (see the introductory post of this series for a link to the relevant work) replied, “The Scriptures are indeed most useful, and it is no little favor which God has done us to preserve them for us through so many persecutions, but the utility of Scripture does not make holy traditions useless, any more than the use of one eye, of one leg, of one ear, of one hand, makes the other useless” (translated by Fr. Mackey, OSB, 103).

He goes on to remind me of John 20:30-31 and Romans 10:14 (especially, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book,” and, “How are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?”). When I refute with Galatians 1:8, which warns against false proclamations, St. Francis replies that Paul expressly declares that the Gospel has been preached, not merely written; so the gospel is both what was taught and what was written, and anything taught contrary to the traditions of the apostles, that which was taught but not written, should be accursed! And the good saint went on to remind me of II Thessalonians 2:14, II John 12; III John 13-14; II Timothy 1:13-14; 2:2; and more still.

By the standard of Scripture itself, I cannot, in good conscience and sound mind, reject the Tradition of the apostles.

What, then, of the third rule of faith for Catholics: the Church? It goes back to my first point, which I took so long to make: we have need of a judge when there is disagreement over the interpretation of Scripture. On any subject, any theological point, when we disagree, we say, “Let us look to Scripture!” But St. Francis reminds us of Matthew 5:13 and asks, “If the Scripture be the subject of our disagreement, who shall decide?” (ibid, 111)

Catholics, then, have this authority in the Church. From the Church extend all other rules of the faith–the ecumenical Councils (some of which some Protestants accept, and others not), the early Church fathers (some of which are accepted and others are not, though, I think, very few are accepted in toto), the papacy (which all Protestants reject, hence the name), the miracles and the saints, and the harmony of faith and reason. (I will touch on most of these topics, including the Church herself, in later posts.)

Thus can Catholics be assured of a right understanding of Scripture and holy Tradition, in sum, the Gospel of Christ–not when they, like Protestants, make their own judgments and apply their own opinions, but when they turn to the “awful authority of the mob,” the great unity of the Church and her doctrine, her understanding, handed down from the apostles, who themselves received it from Jesus Christ in the flesh.

These are the other great rules of the faith, and though I have paid them but little explanation, I hope I have summed up my own conversion. Next time, on Swimming the Tiber, I hope to address the specific relationship between Scripture and Tradition, especially the establishment of the canon of Scripture.

Last Post:
Introduction and Definitions
Next Post:
Whence Cometh Scripture, Thither Go I

Swimming the Tiber 1: Introduction and Definitions

Written by on · Leave a Comment

On this Reformation Day, marking 499 years since Martin Luther set the snowball rolling on what would eventually become Protestantism, I have decided to begin a series on my own Counter-Reformation. You see, of late I have been feeling a conviction of the Spirit that I have been too taciturn about my faith. Part of that is wanting to avoid a misrepresentation leading to misunderstandings; I may well do the topic a disservice. Part of my reticence, too, is avoiding the modern trend of getting fired for expressing my beliefs too publicly, too loud, or too obnoxiously.

But those reasons fall flat when examined. Careful exposition on the reasons for my conversion is not bad presentation; and if someone will be offended by my conversion, they will likely be so regardless of what time I mention it. Most employers (some excepted) do not fire good employees on account of a mild expression of their faith, even if that faith contradicts the opinions held by managers and executives at that company (and since I do not plan to use slurs or other grotesque terminology, legitimate reasons for my firing are not likely to come up); and besides that, even if I am fired on these grounds, I shall “offer it up”–that is, I shall adhere to Colossians 1:24.

The astute and frequent site visitor may doubt my resolve in beginning a long series. You’ve likely noticed that I haven’t reviewed many books lately, and that my translations of Romans have been inconsistently timed. This slow-down is due almost entirely to my busy schedule: two toddlers (or a toddler and a baby, depending on how much denial I’m in about the passage of time), a full-time job, graduate classes in computer science, and my work on The Aegipan Revolution (sequel to The Chimaera Regiment). In all of that, I don’t really have time to read regularly (which is a shame).

“But wait!” you interrupt. “If you don’t have time to read, why would you have time for a new series of blog posts?” Good question! The answer is that I probably don’t. Taking this up will likely deter some other hobby, but that’s okay. Like my translations of Romans, I think this is important enough to let other hobbies (especially those that are the least productive) fall by the wayside.

What, then, is this series about? I have mentioned it obliquely already: my conversion to Catholicism. It will not follow exactly the route I did; my path from Southern Baptist to Catholic was non-linear, darting from one topic to another without logical progression, until finally everything fell into place in a moment of clarity. Instead, I will try to provide structure, building upon each topic to establish the next. I don’t intend to cover every possible objection to the Catholic Church (an endeavor that would surely take a lifetime), but only those which I had myself (and a couple that are tangentially related). Even so, assuming I can post these on a weekly basis (which is my current plan), this series will take me the better part of a year to complete.

Before I get started, let me quickly say that, if you want your apology from someone more intelligent, more humorous, more structured, and more precise, go out immediately and read St. Francis de Sales’ The Catholic Controversy, which is a series of letters he wrote to his diocese as it became Protestant around him. (He succeeded in converting a great many souls back to the Church, and this is the book I blame more than any other for my own conversion.) More than a few of the points I will present come directly from St. Francis’ work. (You can read my review of it here, if you want an overview. And if you don’t want to buy it, though I recommend you do–taking notes is optional, but probable–there is an English translation available online.)

The first step in any good discussion is an agreement of terms. Disagreeing on definitions is the largest hurdle in any conversation about theology and it is the one most often missed or ignored. Simply put, Catholics and non-Catholics do not use the same terms in the same way, and assuming that they do creates a false understanding of the others’ teaching. I am endeavoring, in this first post of the series, to lay out the terms on which Protestants and Catholics frequently disagree so that these misunderstandings are minimized.

(It is probable that I shall edit this post in the future when I think of more terms that need to be defined.)

to pray
To ask or request. Compare once-common English usage, “Pray tell!” in which the speaker asks that the listener provide more information on a subject. Compare archaism “prithee,” literally, pray thee, used by Shakespeare 228 times to have one character ask another something. In Catholic circles, does not mean “to worship.” (In Protestant circles, excluding usages as in Shakespeare, means almost exclusively “to worship,” and praying can only be done to God. This is a linguistic oddity more than a theological one; Protestants use “pray” for its original meaning so infrequently that laypeople are rarely even aware of that definition.)
to worship
As a general rule, Catholics mean the same thing as Protestants when they say, “to worship,” but sometimes, very rarely, they mean it in a literal way: “to apply the appropriate worth to” something or someone. With this usage, it can be applied to just about anything. Because of the rarity of this usage, I prefer never to engage in it, but in case you come across someone saying, “We worship X, Y, Z (not-God),” don’t automatically say it proves that all Catholics are idolaters. It’s just another linguistic alteration over time, and some folks haven’t caught up yet.
works
I will delve into the soteriological implications of “works” in a later post, but for now, suffice it to say that the term needs to lose its baggage for a good conversation. For Protestants, this word often means that you have fallen into a paganesque method of rote behavior, thinking you can build a stairway to heaven; for Catholics, this word mostly means “labor,” “effort,” or “action.” Attributing more meaning to it will confuse a Catholic and infuriate a Protestant.
holy / holiness
More than a few Protestant evangelical friends of mine have defied usage of the term “holy” in one direction or another. Either “holy” is something that only God is, and therefore we should not apply it to people of any stripe (no matter how good they may be), or “holy” is something all Christians are, and therefore we should not restrict it to certain people. For Catholics, “holy” (synonymous with “saintly”) tends to be held in reserve for both God and the saints. I will delve into the saints in a later post, but for now, suffice it to say that the saints are those “set apart” by God in heaven. Catholic doctrine does not preclude the definition used by Paul (meaning “the faithful” or “Christians in general”) in Romans 15; I Corinthians 6; 2 Corinthians 1; and other places, both in the New and Old Testament. But rather, it favors the definition used by Paul (meaning “the ideal” or “those delineated as holy by God” or “those by the side of God”) in Romans 1; 8; Ephesians 5; and other places. Which of these is the more appropriate meaning can be debated, but the modern usage of Catholics has more than a thousand years of history behind it at this point.
The Five Solas
These belong to Protestantism, and the five solas are: sola Scriptura (Scripture alone is the final authority on God’s plan for salvation), sola gratia (men are saved by grace alone), sola fide (that grace comes through faith alone), solus Christus (that faith is in Christ alone), and soli Deo gloria (creation gives glory to God alone). These are not uniquely Protestant, in that some can be interpreted through a Catholic lens and be entirely accurate (most easily the last), but especially the first is peculiarly Protestant (excluding Anglicans, whose three-legged stool of faith gives no primacy to Scripture). To read more about the five solas, here’s a randomly selected website.

 
That’s all for now. Look forward to more posts in the future. The first topic will be Sacred Tradition, and will involve the daunting task of disagreeing with sola Scriptura. This may seem a very challenging place to begin, but without it, much of the Catholic Church may be dismissed by those who ignore her historical authority.

Next Post:
The Rules of Faith

Romans 6

Written by on · Leave a Comment
This is a literal translation of an ancient Greek text. It has also been cross-posted on 31Prayers.com. For more information on how to read this post and what everything means, see the relevant page on that site.

 
1What therefore shall [we] say? Should [we] tarry with(persist in)dubitative independent subjunctive error,here and throughout, (sin) in order that grace may be more than enough?(superfluous)a 2Would that it not come to be.here and throughout, (become [so]) Whichever [of us] died [on a particular occasion] to error, how shall [we] still live in it?b 3Or do [you] not perceive(are [you] ignorant) that, as many as were baptizedc into Christ Jesus, [they] were baptized into his death? 4Thereforesome manuscripts: For; others omit [we] were buried together with him through the baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was roused out of [the] dead through the glory of the father, thus also we may walk about in newness of life.d 5For if [we] have become(come into being as) innate with(natural to) the likeness of his death, on the other hand [we] shall also be [innate with the likeness] of the resurrection;e 6knowing this, that our old man was co-crucified,f in order that the body of error might be left idle, in order that we may no longer be enslavedgenitive of purpose with articular infinitive to error; 7for the [one] dying has been justified(vindicated) from the error.g 8But, on the other hand,some manuscripts: For if [we] died with Christ, [we] believe that [we] shall also live with him, knowing that Christ, having been roused out of [the] dead no longer dies, his death no longer is lord [of him].Some translations simply render this, “Death is no longer master over him,” because κυριεύω (“rules”, “is lord”) takes a genitive for its direct object; but word order obviously has αὐτοῦ (“his”) modifying θάνατος (“death”). As usual, the answer is probably that the word is doing double-duty and modifies both. 10For [he] who died, died to error once for all;h but on the other hand, [he] who lives, lives for God.i 11Thus also you, calculate yourselves {to be}The presence or position of this word is disputed. dead to error on the one hand, but on the other hand, living for God in Christ Jesus.some manuscripts: in Christ Jesus our Lord; others omitj

12Let error not reign, therefore, in your mortal body, [leading] unto hearkening to(obeying) its yearnings,some manuscripts: it in its yearningsi.e., do not let sin command you 13and do not stand up your limbs as tools of injustice for error, but stand yourselves up for Godk as if [the] living out of [the] deadl and [stand up] your limbs as tools of justice for God. 14For your error will not reign;m for [you] are not under [the] law, but under grace.

15What therefore? Should [we] err because [we] are not under [the] law but under grace? Would that it not come to be.n 16Do you not know that of the [one] for whom [you] stand yourselves up as slaves [leading] unto obedience,shares root with ὑπακούω, “to hearken” [you] are slaves of the [one] to whom [you] hearken, either truly of error [leading] unto death or of obedience [leading] unto justice?o 17But thankslit. grace [be] to God that [you] were slaves of error, but [you] hearkened to(obeyed) a modellit. a beating / cast of instruction which [you] were taught,lit. handed over 18but having been set free [on a particular occasion] from the error,p [you] were enslaved to justice. 19[I] say a human [thing] on account of the weakness of your flesh. For just as [you] stood up your limbs as slaves to uncleanness and to lawlessness, [leading] unto lawlessness, thus now stand upaorist imperative; as an order, insists that something be done discretely (i.e., “on a particular occasion”) your limbs as slaves to justice, [leading] unto sanctification. 20For because [you] were slaves of error, [you] were free for justice. 21Therefore what fruit were [you] then holding? Upon which [things] [you] are now ashamed,q for the end of those [things] [is] death.r 22But now having been set free from the error, and [rather] having been enslaved to God, [you] have your fruit [leading] unto sanctification, and [you have] the end, eternal life.s 23For the wages of error [are] death, but the favor of God [is] eternal life in Christ Jesus our lord.t

Cross-references:
a Should [we] tarry…more than enough: cf. Romans 3:5-8
b Whichever [of us]…live in it: cf. I Peter 4:1
c as many as were baptized: cf. Galatians 3:27
d verse 4: cf. Colossians 2:12
e verse 5: cf. Philippians 3:10-11
f that our old…man was co-crucified: cf. Galatians 5:24
g verse 7: cf. I Peter 4:1
h died to error…once for all: cf. Hebrews 9:26-28; I Peter 3:18
i but on the…lives for God: cf. Galatians 2:19
j verse 11: cf. II Corinthians 5:15; I Peter 2:24
k stand yourselves up for God: cf. Romans 12:1
l as if [the]…of [the] dead: cf. Ephesians 2:5; 5:14
m For your error…will not reign: cf. I John 3:6
n Should [we] err…come to be: cf. Romans 5:17, 21
o verse 16: cf. John 8:34; II Peter 2:19
p but having been…from the error: cf. John 8:32
q Upon which [things]…are now ashamed: cf. Ezekiel 16:61, 63
r for the end…[things] [is] death: cf. Romans 7:5; 8:6, 13
s and [you have]…end, eternal life: cf. I Peter 1:9
t verse 23: cf. Romans 5:12, 15