the
decisive instrument of grace.
Its personal acceptance is
paramount. By comparison with
the Word, sacraments are secondary.
The Word is always free and
new every time it is proclaimed.
It does not solidify into
a norm. Thus the very concept
of dogma is untenable for
Protestants. Dogma is constituted
by the contents of Revelation
as set forth by the Church:
thus arose the articles of
Faith. For Protestantism,
by contrast, only free and
momentary proclamations of
the Word have importance.
Their consolidation in professions
of confessional faith is nothing
more than a human deed and
can be revised, [p. 76]
Protestants
reject Tradition as constitutive for dogma,
present from the beginning of the Church,
accepting only Scripture. All the same they
cultivate their own traditionalism,
which consists in applying the principles
of Protestant tradition to the interpretation
of the Bible: "The Catholic who reads
Protestant commentaries on the Bible is not
infrequently surprised to find references
to the works of Luther" (p.77), used
in fact as an interpretative canon. This not
withstanding the Lutheran belief in free individual
interpretation of texts without notes of explanation,
with only the assistance of the Holy Ghost!
Furthermore, Catholics and Protestants do
not have the same Bible (how many Catholics
are aware of this?). Luther eliminated the
so-called deutero-canonical works of the Old
Testament. In the New Testament he considered
uncanonical the Letter to the Hebrews, the
Letter of James (which teaches the necessary
relation of works to salvation), the Second
Letter of Peter and the Book of Revelation
(ibid.)!
Since
for the Catholic Church all sacred texts have
God as their author, there is a unity amongst
them and one text cannot be set against another.
Their inerrancy is absolute and contains neither
contradictions nor truths of primary or secondary
importance-they all enjoy the same authority.
In Protestantism, by contrast,
a
series of qualitative distinctions amongst
the sacred texts is at work. There is in
effect a canon within the canon, different
levels of authority within the Bible. In
this way passages of Sacred Scripture can
be set one against the other, and the interpreter
acts as judge of Revelation. Luther recognized
in Sacred Scripture only "what Christ
revealed," as he put it. He gave pride
of place to the Letters to the Romans and
the Galatians, since he thought he found
in them confirmation of his doctrine of
justification, [p. 78]
The
Catholic Church possesses a higher court that
authoritatively interprets Sacred Scripture:
the Magisterium of the Church. Protestantism
lacks any such authority. It affirms that
"Scripture interprets itself." The
falsehood of this claim is shown by the great
accumulation of contradictory interpretations
characteristic of the sectarians. It should
be noted that the different criteria for interpreting
the Bible are actually contained in the professions
of faith of the different sects. Over the
last two centuries Protestant theologians,
with a methodology that rejects the principle
of authority and looks for
contradictions, have practically destroyed
the authority of the sacred text (pp.78-79).
Justification and
Grace
For
Catholics and Protestants, the conceptions
of justification and grace irremediably opposed:
Grace
is for Catholicism every supernatural gift
God grants to man so that he might attain
eternal life. The two essential types of
grace are actual and sanctifying grace.
The latter is a supernatural reality, infused
by God in the soul, inhering in the soul
as a quality of its very essence. The Protestant
conception is altogether different: Grace
is nothing other than benevolence, the merciful
disposition of God. It is not a supernatural
principle of our life which sanctifies it
by an interior transformation.
[For
Protestants,] man is corrupted by original
sin in such a way that on his own he is
capable only of evil. Therefore there can
be no preparation for or collaboration in
justification on the part of man through
the mediation of grace. God does everything
on His own, man can do nothing. Against
these errors the Catholic Church, anchored
in Tradition and Sacred Scripture, teaches
that human nature has indeed been wounded
by original sin, but nevertheless remains
capable of cooperating with divine grace
for justification. The subjective principle
of justification is the faith, [p.80]
The
faith, however, is understood by Protestantism
as merely the individual's confident trust
in divine mercy. [Luther maintains that one
must believe that the sacrifice of Christ,
an act of divine mercy, is like a cloak that
covers all our sins; this belief alone is
necessary for salvation, since man is incapable
of change. It is not possible to sanctify
oneself in the daily struggle of the spiritual
life by seeking the help of grace. Luther's
is a dark faith, based on the anxious sense
of one's own misery, while it is also poisoned
with pride because in expecting everything
of God it demands nothing of man, who pretends
to be saved while remaining unchanged, burdened
with passions and vices. -Ed.]
For
Catholicism, however, "faith is personal
submission to God and at the same time free
adhesion of the intellect to Truth as revealed
by God" (ibid.). For the Church
faith is inseparable from free will. Thus
the manner in which justification is accomplished
through grace is profoundly different:
The
mercy of Christ, which adopts the sinner through
faith [thus making him a son of God by adoption
-Ed.], is for the Protestants limited to covering
over the sinfulness of man (in effect a diminution
of the mercy or "justice" of Christ).
His inner sinfulness remains unchanged even
in the justified man (simul iustus etpeccator).
For Catholic doctrine, by contrast, justification
involves a true inner sanctification. [pp.80-81]
The Concept of the "Church"
(See SiSiNoNo [The Angelus
English-Language edition], February
2005, pp.21-23.)
The Sacraments
The
Protestants have preserved only "baptism"
and the "Eucharist." What do they
make of the other five sacraments? With the
possible exception of the Anglicans, confirmation
is an "empty and superstitious ceremony."
Confession "is not a sacrament but only
a recommended practice, as also extreme unction.
Holy orders is considered a manifestation
of pride, an error dangerous for souls. Marriage
is only a contract, always subject to dissolution.
Recently, as is well known, various Protestant
circles have signaled openness to 'homosexual
marriage'" (p.82). Protestantism thus
denies that the sacraments can be effective
ex opere operato. The only means of salvation
is the Word: it follows that the sacraments
procure grace not through their action, but
only through the faith of the recipient (ibid.,
p.83).
Baptism
What
then to say of baptism, the sacrament so often
paraded by the ecumenists as a secure common
possession of Catholics and Protestants? Also
on this point most Catholic faithful have
not been well informed. In fact,
for
many Protestants baptism is merely a symbol,
which does not act upon the soul of the
baptized. In any case, it is not understood
as a cause of grace produced by God in the
soul, but rather as a simple sign. The Protestant
understanding of faith and its belief in
the unique salvific power of the Word do
not afford baptism any specific sacramental
efficacy. Those Protestants who admit that
grace is conferred in baptism also maintain
that it derives from faith alone. Few Protestants
believe that baptism procures grace. More
and more Protestants now deny the necessity
of baptism for salvation. Only faith (understood
as trust) is necessary. Salvation is connected
to faith, not to baptism, which is not even
required for admittance into what they call
the church. The synod of the Reformed Church
of France (May 25-27, 2001) pronounced itself
in favor of the general admittance of the
non-baptized to the Eucharist." [p.83]
The Eucharist
Protestantism
violently rejects the Catholic doctrine of
the Holy Mass, as dogmatically defined by
the Council of Trent (p.84):
It
denies the essential connection between
the sacrifice of the Cross and the sacrifice
of the Mass. The cult of the Eucharist of
the Lord is merely a memorial of the sacrifice
of the Cross, and involves no offering of
immolation. The role of the Eucharist in
the rituals of Protestant sects cannot be
compared with the high honor reserved for
holy Mass in the Catholic Church. Most Sundays
Protestants do not celebrate the Eucharist,
contenting themselves with a liturgy of
the Word. As religious observances, sermons
and the Eucharist have the same value for
Protestants: the individual can freely choose
between them. There is no obligation to
attend services. Nor is there any obligation
to prepare oneself for the Eucharist by
confession if mortal sin has been committed.
For Protestants the administration of the
Eucharist produces the pardon of sins; this
means that, in certain respects, it takes
the place of the sacrament of penance, which
they have abolished. This is their current
practice. The Eucharist is celebrated without
being preceded by any confession, and the
non-baptized can also partake. All Protestant
confessions decisively reject the dogma
of transubstantiation. They recognize no
priestly consecration of the bread and wine.
Regarding the Real Presence they manifest
striking insecurity and contradictions.
At the least they deny it... [and thus]
the species are not venerated, [pp.84-85]
In
conclusion, "the Eucharist does not unite
Catholics and Protestants, on the contrary
it shows their insuperable divisions"
(p.85).
Sacrament of Orders
Protestantism
does not recognize the figure of the priest,
who speaks and acts in persona Christi.
They combat this belief as erroneous and reprehend
it because, in their opinion, a hierarchical
priesthood would introduce into the Church
a division into two classes, which would contradict
the will of Christ.... [F] or them, every
baptized person can do that which, for the
Catholic Church, belongs specifically to priests,
bishops, and the pope. The office of preaching
belongs to all the faithful. If only some
are chosen as "servants of the Word"
it is only for reasons of order and administration.
The German Protestant churches recently confirmed
in the starkest terms that ordination "is
not a consecration.. .that would confer a
particular faculty in relation to the Eucharist
and its elements. Every Christian can preside
at the liturgy and pronounce the words of
consecration." This means that "the
priestly office is merely a function, not
a sacrament." [In this regard one should
remember that Vatican II introduced the notion
of the ministerial priesthood as a function
of the people of God and seems to have
placed priestly ministry and the priesthood
of the believers on the same level: cf. Lumen
Gentium §§10, 13; deer.
Presbyterorum Ordinis §§2,
4.-Ed.]
Nevertheless,
for reasons of competition and prestige, Protestantism
maneuvers to hide from the eyes of the public
the ontological difference between the Catholic
priesthood and the Protestant ministry. It
is enough to recall the use of the stole by
Protestant clergy, giving the impression that
the holders of priestly office in the two
religions are on the same plane and exert
the same functions.
The
Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of apostolic
succession. This means that there is no validly
consecrated bishop whose ecclesiastical genealogical
tree cannot be traced, directly or indirectly,
to an apostle. This secure connection places
the existence of an uninterrupted transmission
of episcopal power beyond discussion. For
Protestants, however, the point is eminently
discussable. For them it is enough to stay
firm in the apostolic Faith, which they claim
as their own. The succession of the Gospel
prevails over that of the episcopacy. For
some time Catholic ecumenists have been aligned
with the Protestant position, ready to renounce
the succession of the imposition of hands
for an indemonstrable "continuity in
Faith and doctrine with the Church of the
Apostles" [most striking here is the
desire to exclude from this "continuity"
its expression by the episcopate over centuries;
this real continuity is replaced by the "doctrine"
of the Apostles or the "primitive Church,"
as recomposed by heretics beginning with Luther,
the same Luther who discarded Scripture (e.g.
the Epistle of James) and patristic interpretations,
when he could not by some artifice make them
agree with his own interpretation -Ed.].
One
Catholic dogma entails the impossibility of
ordaining women to the priesthood. This dogma
does not exist for Protestantism: the different
sects have no difficulty in naming women ministers.
The number of women bishops in their ranks
continues to increase.... Sex is of no importance
for being a minister. Even transsexuals have
been put in charge of Protestant churches,
[pp.85-87]
The Most Blessed Virgin
Protestants
reject the cult of Our Lady. The dogma of
the Assumption (1950) provoked furious protests
in its time. Virtually all Protestants deny
the virginity of our Lady after the birth
of our Lord. To believe that they honor the
Madonna is a pious illusion. This may be true
of individuals or groups, but it in no way
applies to Protestantism as a whole. Prayer
to Mary and above all her mediation of all
graces is categorically rejected (pp.87-88).
Protestant Ethics
Here
a profound abyss separates Catholics from
Protestants:
Kantian
formalism dominates large parts of Protestant
ethics. According to the principle of Kantian
autonomy, the individual can act in accordance
with his personal experience of the faith.
The result is that morality is placed at
the interior disposition of the individual,
and the objective value of exterior comportment
is lost along the way. It suffices to recall
two canons of Protestant ethics. 1) There
is no law that applies without exceptions,
but only rules of moral comportment, which
admit of exception according to the circumstances.
With a just motive, anyone can excuse himself
from observing any given commandment. For
example: Protestantism condemns lies, but
permits them in cases of necessity. 2) It
does not recognize some actions as intrinsically
wicked, and thus always and in all circumstance
forbidden. Such actions may be perpetrated
if a good motive exists [and thus the individual
conscience, unshackled by the law, decides
in each case-Ed.]. On the moral plane, Protestantism
is the religion of concessions. This applies
especially to sexual morality. The voluntary
prevention of conception through chemical
and mechanical means is not a moral problem
for Protestants. Sexual relations outside
of marriage can be practiced, if justified
by valid motives. In the presence of just
cause divorce is not only permitted, but
may even be perceived as necessary. There
is no moral obstacle to the remarriage of
the divorced.
Two
thousand years after the appearance of the
Logos, Lutherans are still not sure whether
homosexuality should be considered a sin.
This vice finds adhesion and recognition
in Protestantism. In many Protestant "churches"
homosexual unions are officially celebrated.
Protestant ethics shows its true face in
the matter of abortion. Naturally, it declares
that abortion as such is inadmissible. But
in certain circumstances it is permitted.
The synod of German Protestant churches
has declared that in some cases it may be
morally blameworthy to impede an abortion,
[pp.88-89]
The Last Things
The
Catholic Church has always firmly maintained
the doctrine whereby at death the soul is
separated from the body to be judged by
God, deciding its salvation or perdition.
Souls insufficiently pure to appear before
God must pass through the fires of purgatory.
In many sectors of Protestantism the hypothesis
of total death is maintained, holding that
the whole man disappears at death, and there
is no further life of the soul. Those who
do admit the existence of the soul are convinced
that it goes right away to beatitude in
heaven. Purgatory is left out of account.
Thus there is no need for prayer, intercessions,
Masses for the dead, indulgences, [pp.89-90]
Is
not this troubled understanding of the Last
Things widely diffused among Catholics today?
And has not ecumenism played a role in this
trend?
We
could continue at length but this brief survey
seems sufficient for our purpose. Faced with
the concealment of the true nature of Protestantism
by the dominant false ecumenism, Fr. May very
opportunely brings the attention of Catholics
to the true nature of Protestantism (p. 109).
The Orthodox
Let
us now consider doctrinal differences with
the Orthodox.
Paul
VI and John Paul II have repeatedly emphasized
our supposed commonality of faith with the
Oriental Churches. It is striking that these
declarations have found no resonance from
the Orthodox Churches. In fact this commonality
does not exist. Walter Kasper is mistaken
to claim that "the only true theological
controversy with the Orthodox" concerns
papal primacy. The idyllic image he proposes
of relations between the Catholic Church
and the Orthodox is a deceptive one. There
is no truth of the Faith that the Orthodox
do not understand in a different way from
the Catholic Church, even in the details.
For them fidelity to tradition has become
a rigid traditionalism. At the same time,
many aspects of their doctrine are not clearly
established or clarified, are matters of
controversy or considered out of date. It
should not be forgotten that Orthodoxy has
drunk deeply from the well of Protestantism.
Here are some examples of the differences.
It
is apparent that their understanding of
the Church does not coincide with the Catholic
one [see Si Si No No, Feb. 2005,
p.21]. The Orthodox communities are national
churches, strictly linked to state power.3
Local churches, from the Orthodox perspective,
are not particular churches: every local
church is a Catholic Church, complete in
itself. The universal Church is merely the
collection of the local churches.
The
primacy of jurisdiction of the Bishop of
Rome is unanimously rejected by the Orthodox.
Furthermore, the Orthodox maintain that
the third Person of the Most Holy Trinity
proceeds only from the Father, not from
the Father and the Son as the dogma of the
Catholic Church holds. On the problem of
original sin, they approach the Protestants
in inferring from it the total corruption
of man. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin finds powerful opposition
in Orthodoxy. Many Orthodox consider baptism
administered by heretics to be invalid.
Catholics and Protestants who convert to
Orthodoxy are rebaptized [unconditionally
-Ed.]. The same holds for confirmation
in some circumstances. Transubstantiation
(when it is accepted) is ascribed not to
the words of consecration but to the subsequent
invocation of the Holy Ghost (epiclesis).
Eucharistic adoration does not exist. The
doctrine of indulgences has no place. The
sacred oil is administered not only to the
sick but also to the healthy. There is notable
uncertainty about the possibility of women
becoming deaconesses or priests. The minister
of the sacrament of marriage is the priest,
not the spouses. Divorce is permitted for
just cause. The divorced can remarry up
to a third time in a sacramental marriage
[!]. Orthodoxy has no objection to impediments
to conception. In relation to homosexuality
an "opening" is apparent. Some
uncertainties are apparent in the doctrine
of the last things. Purgatory is denied
by most of their theologians.
From
these few indications it can be understood
that there are grave doctrinal contradictions
between Catholics and Orthodox. John Paul
II’s hope that dialogue between Catholics
and Orthodox might clarify nearly all points
of controversy is unfounded in reality.
The Council's affirmation that the spiritual
and theological patrimony of the Orthodox
"belongs to the full catholicity and
apostolicity of the Church" (Unitatis
Redintegratio §17) is at the very
least misleading.4 If the statement means
that this patrimony, insofar as it is authentic,
belongs in reality to the Catholic Church,
it is correct. If however it means that
this patrimony is absent from the Catholic
Church, it is mistaken. It must be reaffirmed,
against the express opinion of the Council
(UR §15), that communicatio in
sacris with the Orthodox is neither
"possible" nor "advisable."
Furthermore, the Orthodox themselves do
not entertain the possibility of shared
communion with Catholics, whom they consider
heretics, [pp. 120-122]
Their
participation in the ecumenical initiatives
promoted by Rome is merely a matter of convenience.
Speculator
Translated
exclusively for Angelus Press from SiSiNoNo,
Vol.30, No.21, (Dec. 15, 2004) with editing
by Fr. Kenneth Novak. Fr. George May was
born in 1926 and studied philosophy and
theology at the Universities of Breslau,
Fulda, Munich, and Neuzelle. He was ordained
to the priesthood in 1951, from which time
he was engaged with pastoral duties and
teaching at the Erfurt Seminary. At the
University of Munich he received a doctorate
in theology in 1955 and a licentiate in
canon law in 1956. From 1960 to 1994 he
was Professor of Canon Law, the Law of Church-State
Relations, and the History of Canon Law
at the University of Mainz. In addition
to publications in his fields of specialization,
Dr. May has written prolifically on developments
in the Church since the Second Vatican Council.
1.
George May, Die Ökumenismusfalle
(Stuttgart: Sarto Verlag, 2004), p.25.
[Subsequent page references in the text are
to this book.]
2. On Pentecost
Sunday of 1549, three years after the death
of Henry VIII, the introduction by law of
a new Mass in the vernacular (a rite in which
Catholic and Protestant elements were cleverly
mixed) provoked the quick revolt of all western
England (the Western Rebellion.) The rebels
sought the restoration of the old religion,
beginning with the holy Mass. They were rapidly
banished by German and Italian mercenaries,
which at the time constituted the only ground
troops of the English crown.
3.
Recall that the return of the Oriental schismatics
to the bosom of the Catholic Church, on whose
terms the respective religious authorities
had already formally agreed, was on two occasions
broken off, especially through the fatal intervention
of political powers that did not want to lose
control over the church. The Russian case
is one example. From the tenth century Russia
belonged to the patriarchate of Constantinople
(it later became autocephalous). Patriarch
Isidore, a Greek, attended the ecumenical
councils of Ferrara and Florence. At the latter
was concluded a celebrated agreement for the
return of the Orthodox to Catholicism. In
1441 Isidore returned to Russia as a cardinal
and apostolic legate for Russia, where he
prayed for the pope at holy mass and read
the decree of union with Rome. Prince Vasily
II, who was governing the principate of Moscow
(still at that time a vassal state of the
Mongols), interrupted the celebration by violence
and expelled the patriarch from the church,
arresting him and confining him to a monastery.
Afterwards a synod of the Russian bishops
declared the metropolitan deposed and "rejected
the proposed union with Rome in the name of
the Russian people" (N. Brian-Chaninov,
Storia di Russia, Ital. ed. [Milan:
Garzanti, 1940], pp.92-96). It was an unprecedented
scandal.
4.
Recall that the Orthodox, after more than
six centuries of accord with the Roman Church
on the ecclesiastical celibacy, implicitly
recommended by Sacred Scripture, arrested
the development of celibate discipline at
the Council of Trullo (692), which marked
the first skirmishes of antagonism that would
later break out into schism. This council
recognized the obligation of celibacy only
for bishops and priests who were not married
at the time of ordination, finding fault with
the different and more austere usage of the
Roman Church which, by contrast, has fully
developed the apostolic thinking with regard
to priestly celibacy as apparent in Sacred
Scripture.
