Trent on Justification - Canons 12–14

Canons 12-14 of Trent on Justification seem to constitute the Council’s canonical repudiation of Protestantism’s “sola fide.” That is, it was forbidden by the canons of Trent for a Catholic to hold this view; but these canons do not constitute the Council’s teaching on justification, which is to be found in the Decree on Justification (see the previous link, as well as our previous looks at chapters VII and VIII of the Decree).

CANON XII. If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII. If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

CANON XIV. If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

Protestantism’s “sola fide” is an error; there is a sense in which it can rightly be said that we are justified by faith, as the Council says, but the error rejected by these canons is not it. Justification is not subjective and consequently contingent upon some internal subjective state of mind; faith is not confidence—although of course we ought to have complete confidence in God.

Trent on Justification - Canon Eleven

Canon 11 on Justification addresses certain errors related to what it means to be justified.

If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

The first error seems to be related to what was said in §10:

If any one saith,…that it is by [Christ’s] justice itself that [men] are formally just; let him be anathema.

It is not the case that justification consists solely in the imputation of Christ's justice, nor solely in remission of sins. Justification is not a legal fiction. Rather, as the canon says, the grace and charity of the Holy Spirit are poured into our hearts, and become inherent in us: we are made holy, not simply made not guilty.

Note again that this infusion of grace and charity is something that God does: we do not make ourselves holy. We do not make ourselves just. It is the work of God.

Trent on Justification - Canon Ten

The tenth canon on justification makes it clear that we do not merit justification by anything that we do.

If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

Christ merits for us to be justified: nothing that we do can accomplish this for us. Consequently they who say that the Catholic Church teaches a works-based gospel are wrong. We cannot justify ourselves, nor merit it as a reward; rather, Christ merits our justification.

Yet another object lesson

David Waltz has an informative post on the 19th century Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge's views of the Catholic Church. These are not the views of your average Internet anti-Catholic polemicist.

That Romanists as a society profess the true religion, meaning thereby the essential doctrines of the gospel, those doctrines which if truly believed will save the soul, is, as we think, plain.

Unfortunately, the average anti-Catholic doesn't care about this except as a demonstration that Hodge was not infallible: he is perfectly willing—no matter the measure of his own scholarly qualifications—to dismiss Hodge on this score (and any other where Hodge disagrees with him).

On the other hand, I think it is excellent evidence that even Presbyterians (to say nothing of disagreements among different theological groups among Protestants) cannot agree among themselves as to what constitutes damnable heresy.

Fraternizing with the Enemy

When I first read this, my response was this.

But then someone reminded me of this:

Now the publicans and sinners drew near unto him to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying: This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them.

[Luke 15:1-2]

Scandal!!!1!

And that reminded me of this:

And the Pharisee, who had invited him, seeing it, spoke within himself, saying: This man, if he were if a prophet, would know surely who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him, that she is a sinner.

[Luke 7:39]

Oh Noes!!!!!

I think that these passages are appropriate rejoinders, and the occasion represents a teaching moment: if certain Protestants treat one of their own in this way, we should not be surprised if they likewise think the worst of us Catholics. If they can't "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" with respect to their comrades, it's a fool's errand to hope that they will show any respect to us. It's sad, but there it is.

Trent on Justification - Canon Nine

Trent’s ninth canon on justification condemns the Protestant error of “sola fide,” and the error among the Reformed that free assent is required.

If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

This is not contrary to salvation by grace alone, Protestant objections notwithstanding. There is an unwarranted assumption held by most Protestants that human cooperation in justification runs counter to salvation by grace alone, but we've seen that this is false with respect to the Catholic doctrines of grace: we must consent, and we must “work out our salvation in fear and trembling,” but our very ability to do these things is necessarily preceded by grace.

Ay Caramba

Protestants are falling all over each other in their haste to condemn Michael Horton as a heretic…because he wrote an approving blurb for a book by a Catholic about the theology of Benedict XVI. Horton didn’t approve Catholicism, mind you; he simply approved the book as a useful guide to the Pope’s theology. I suppose he left out the “pope is antichrist” shibboleths, and this is all the evidence needed to condemn him in the eyes of some. One wonders if these folks think Boettner’s rag is the only guide to Catholicism that they’ll ever need.

Meanwhile, a salient point seems to be escaping their view: they do not know why Horton wrote the blurb. This ought to be an essential precondition of judging another’s actions, unless they think that Israel’s “assume the worst” policy is the touchstone of Christian charity. But it’s hard to reconcile that with “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,”—unless maybe you’d like having your name dragged through the Internet mud on the basis of almost zero facts. Horton didn’t even build a potentially suspicious altar. All he did, basically, was to say this: “If you want to know about Pope Benedict’s theology, this is a good book to read.”

And for that, some folks think he should be charged with heresy. But he didn’t say that he agreed with the Pope’s theology, and if agreeing with Catholics on any point is sufficient to warrant the star chamber, then I can think of some others that the critics might want to “investigate,” too. Oh, and about that Holy Trinity thing that you Protestants accept: we Catholics believe that too (in fact, we believed it first). Does that make you ritually unclean?

I think some people need to put down the keyboard, step away from the Internet, and get a breath of fresh air. And maybe have a beer.

Spock’s rejoinder once again proves apposite:

You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing.

Important Points: the author of the first link above, who also wrote this, does not indulge in the witch hunt; rather, some of the comboxers do.

Likewise, beyond saying that he is “disappointed,” TF has not overtly expressed an opinion about Horton’s blurb, other than to ask his “open question.” My only observation would be that rather than suspect him of (the horror!) Catholic sympathies (as TF's question obviously does), he might have asked why Horton wrote the blurb instead of going the “prove you’re innocent” route.

[Update, 11/17/2009:] Horton throws water on the speculation and the critics. I suspect that even this will be insufficient for ESPers amongst the anti-Catholics, who are just so darn good at reading a man’s heart from a single paragraph abstracted from an entire career’s worth of work. But they can never be satisfied anyway. I would be delighted if Horton does convert someday, but that blurb certainly constitutes no evidence warranting hope for that.