Were Catholic doctrines such as purgatory and papal primacy really universal in the early Church?

Were Catholic doctrines such as purgatory and papal primacy really universal in the early Church?

Full Question

Why does the Catholic Church claim (from Vatican I) that its doctrines can be verified by the "universal and unanimous consent of the Fathers" when it's so easy to prove that the Fathers were not unanimous in their teachings? Catholic doctrines such as purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and papal primacy were not "universally" held in the early Church.

Answer

While the assembled bishops at Vatican I did invoke the authority of the Fathers on the issue of papal primacy (cf. Sess. 4, ch. 4), they did not say that only those doctrines that enjoyed universal and unanimous consent of the Fathers were to be believed. In fact, Vatican I says nothing even remotely like that. It appeals to the testimony of the Fathers only briefly, after having first given a detailed elucidation from Scripture of the doctrines of papal primacy and infallibility.

It's a matter of historical record that the Church Fathers disagreed on various issues. Some, such as Origen and Tertullian (who are not officially titled "Fathers," although they are ranked among the major theological writers of the early Church), even lapsed into heresy. The point is not that every Father agreed with every other Father on every issue--that would constitute an absolute mathematical unanimity, something which the Catholic Church does not claim. Rather, there was a moral unanimity of teaching among the Fathers. This means that doctrines such as the ones listed in your question were universally held and taught by the Catholic Church. Some Fathers wrote on these issues, to greater and lesser extents. Some never mentioned certain doctrines at all (at least not in their writings which have survived), and others can be seen to have held erroneous opinions about other doctrines.

The Catholic Church never has claimed that every Church Father at all times believed and taught every single Catholic doctrine in the sense that the Church teaches it. It is the Church as a single organic entity, the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-27) that always and everywhere has faithfully guarded and proclaimed the apostolic deposit of faith--not necessarily its individual members. This is true today. The Catholic Church universally teaches, as it always has, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. But there are droves of "Catholics" who, as a result of spiritual apathy or being poorly catechized, do not believe this doctrine as taught by the Church. This in no way contradicts the truth that the Church "universally" holds this doctrine.

Purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and papal primacy were universally taught in the early Church, as can be demonstrated by a study of patristic writings. (For starters, consider the many quotations from the Fathers on these issues in "The Fathers Know Best" department of This Rock). The Fathers appealed not only to Scripture as their doctrinal authority, but also to the Fathers who came before them, to show the constant tradition of Catholic teaching on a given subject.

Around 150 Irenaeus appealed to the traditional teachings of the Fathers (Against Heresies 2:2-4) to show that Catholic teaching could be established from both Scripture and Tradition. Tertullian appealed to the moral unanimity of the Fathers who preceded him to show the universality of Catholic doctrine:

[Is it plausible to imagine that the Holy Spirit] neglected his office, permitting the churches [dioceses] for a time to understand differently, and to believe differently, what he himself was preaching by the apostles; is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues [beliefs]. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. (Praescripciones 28)

Basil of Caesarea appealed to the testimony of the Fathers:

Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of my own intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but [only] what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my Church the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicaea is in use. (Letter 140:2)

Vincent of Lerins summarized the issue:

Therefore, as soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty . . . may be condemned. But the opinions of those Fathers only are to be used for comparison who, living and teaching, holily, wisely, and with constancy, in the Catholic faith and communion, were counted worthy either to die in the faith of Christ or to suffer death happily for Christ. Whom yet we are to believe on this condition, that only is to be accounted indubitable, certain, established, which either all or the most part have supported and confirmed manifestly, frequently, persistently, in one and the same sense, forming, as it were, a consentient council of doctors, all receiving, holding, handing on the same doctrine. But whatsoever a teacher holds, be he a bishop, be he a confessor, be he a martyr, let that be regarded as a private fancy of his own, and [let it] be separated from the authority common, public, general persuasion. (Commonitoria 28:72-23 [A.D. 434]) 

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Why won't Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood transfusions, even when their lives are in jeopardy?

Why won't Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood transfusions, even when their lives are in jeopardy?

Answer

Mainly because their founder, Charles Taze Russell, scrambled to come up with a unique set of doctrines that would stand out from the pack. He didn't seem to care which biblical teachings he embraced and which he rejected, so long as the resulting doctrinal pastiche would be exotic. Rejecting blood transfusions on "biblical" grounds is one of the WTS' truly odd tenets. Witnesses cite two verses as bases for their position:

You shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people (Lv 7:26-27).

For the life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off (Lv 17:14).

Besides being inconsistent by retaining this particular Old Covenant prohibition while ignoring others, such as circumcision (cf. Gn 17:2-14) and kosher dietary laws (cf. Dt 14:3-21), Witnesses misunderstand what these passages are talking about. In both Leviticus 7 and 17 the prohibition is against the eating of blood, not reception of blood through transfusions (a medical procedure which was developed only within the last century). Witnesses ignore the fact that in a single passage in Leviticus the Lord prohibits the eating of both blood and fat: "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood" (3:17). Yet the Watchtower does not condemn the eating of fat, and no Jehovah's Witness would feel any moral compunction against eating a bag of fried pork rinds or enjoying a nice, fatty cut of prime rib. This is a good example of the Watchtower's selective "theology."

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Does Isaiah 64:6 state that good works are useless?

Does Isaiah 64:6 state that good works are useless?

Full Question

A Fundamentalist I know has been bashing my Catholic faith by quoting Isaiah 64:6, where the Bible says, "our acts of righteousness are as filthy rags." He says this proves humans have no good works before God. What should I say in return?

Answer

He misunderstands the verse he is quoting. It does not say that all acts of righteousness are as filthy rags to God, but that those being rendered to him in Isaiah's day were.

In context the passage says:

Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him. You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember your ways. But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry. How then can we be saved? All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away. Your sacred cities have become a desert; even Zion is a desert, Jerusalem a desolation. Our holy and glorious Temple, where our fathers praised you, has been burned with fire, and all that we treasured lies in ruins. (Is 64:4-6, 10-11, NIV)

This pertains to a particular historical situation, not to a general condition. The passage appeals to a time when Israelites once had a right relationship with God, when God helped them against their enemies because they waited on him, gladly did right, and remembered his ways.

When they sin against him and did not repent and return to their former state, he abandoned them to the will of their enemies, so that even Jerusalem and its Temple were destroyed. (Isaiah speaks of this prophetically, before it happened.)

It was during that period of continued sin, leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., that they had "become like one who is unclean"--they hadn't always been like that. In this state, even the nation's acts of righteousness appeared like filthy rags to God, so he wouldn't help them: "When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right!" (Is 1:15-17).

Protestants are often confused about the role Catholics believe good works play in salvation, so you should clear this up for the Fundamentalist you know. You should explain to him that we do not perform good works in order to enter a state of justification. The Council of Trent stated that "nothing which precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification" (Decree on Justification 8).

In fact, it is impossible for an unjustified person to do supernaturally good works, since these are based on the virtue of charity (supernatural love), which an unjustified person does not have. Good works therefore flow from our reception of justification; they do not cause us to enter a state of justification. Good works increase the righteousness we are given at justification and please God, who promises to give us supernatural rewards on the last day, including the gift of eternal life (Rom 2:6-7, Gal 6:6-10).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

Was I wrong to take the host back to my pew?

Was I wrong to take the host back to my pew?

Full Question

I sit in the first row at Mass because I am hearing-impaired. When visiting a church recently, the usher gestured for me to go up for Communion before I felt prepared. I accepted the host in my hand and returned to the pew, where I continued my prayer before receiving. Now I am told that this is not permitted. Surely it would be irreverent to receive before one had prayed sufficiently?

Answer

It might be even more irreverent to ignore the instruction of the Church. The document Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion, S.C.D.W., May 29, 1969, notes that "the communicant ought to consume the host before returning to his place" (4).

Editor’s note: It is perfectly all right to remain in one’s pew, despite the usher’s wishes, and to go up for Communion later.

Answered by: Mike Harrison

What if the vocations director says he doesn't believe in confession?

What if the vocations director says he doesn't believe in confession?

Full Question

I am 17 years old and about to enter the seminary. I just talked to my vocation director, and he told me that he does not believe in the sacrament of penance. I'm shocked! How could an orthodox Catholic priest, even a vocation director, say that? He said we could confess with our thoughts. Now, I don't have a problem refuting his claims, but I just want to say I am so horrified at that. Should I switch dioceses? Can this priest still call himself a Catholic?

Answer

First, I hope you will be sure you have not simply misunderstood this priest. The Church teaches, as I’m sure you know, that venial sins may be remitted through an act of contrition. We are encouraged to express repentance, too, for mortal sins as soon as we can, even if we can’t receive the sacrament of penance immediately. So before making any decision that will affect your life profoundly, you should raise your questions clearly and charitably with the priest. If he does hold a view contrary to Church teaching, you have a responsibility to advise your bishop of it. If this priest is robbing the diocese of potential vocations by giving scandal, the bishop will want to correct the situation.

About changing dioceses: I would do this only as a last resort. Your ordinary may be unaware that his vocation director is giving false teaching (if he is). He and the other priests of the diocese may be completely loyal to the magisterium.

If your understanding of the priest’s views are accurate, I can well believe your shock. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 2088 and 2089, deals with sins against the faith, violations of the First Commandment. A denial of the efficacy of the sacraments is to heresy, which is "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith" (CIC 751).

Answered by: Terrye Newkirk

Did John Paul II excommunicate a lot of people?

Did John Paul II excommunicate a lot of people?

Full Question

How many people has John Paul II excommunicated? A friend of mine is trying to portray him as a fanatic who is excommunicating people left and right.

Answer

John Paul II has never excommunicated anyone during his reign as pope. There have been people during his reign who have incurred what is called a latae sententiae or automatic excommunication, such as the radical modernist Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, who committed heresy, and the radical traditionalist Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who excommunicated himself by consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. Both of these offenses incur latae sententiae excommunication under canon law.

There has never been a case where John Paul II excommunicated anyone directly, but he has issued or approved notices that certain individuals, including the ones mentioned above, have themselves incurred latae sententiae excommunication by their actions.

Answered by:  Jimmy Akin

Are we really eating Jesus in the Eucharist, or is it only symbolic?

Are we really eating Jesus in the Eucharist, or is it only symbolic?

Full Question

Do we really "eat Jesus"? Don't the words of consecration call only for a symbolic interpretation of eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood instead of a literal one?

Answer

Not according to the understanding of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, and not according to the practice of Christianity for 1,500 years.

The New Testament Greek in Mark 14:22, Matthew 26:26, and Luke 22:19 reads this way—transliterated, of course, into English characters: " Touto estin to soma mou. " (The very earliest account of the words of consecration in 1 Corinthians 11:24 is slightly different. Paul has it as: " Touto mou estin to soma. " In either case, the translation (as opposed to transliteration) is "This is my body."

Philologists tell us that the verb estin can mean "is really" or "is figuratively." But Paul’s discussion of the Last Supper clearly reflects his belief that the Presence is real, not figurative. Paul’s discourse may antedate the earliest Gospels by as much as eight years. It is hardly likely, in view of that, that Matthew or Mark meant estin to be taken figuratively.

Furthermore, the Greek word for body used in John 6:52-58 is sarx, which means quite specifically and only "physical flesh." The Aramaic scholars I have spoken to tell me that sarx is as close as you can get in Greek to the Aramaic bisra, which Jesus himself used.

Even more evidence from the very earliest Church comes from Ignatius of Antioch. I had to go back to my Greek version of him—somewhat more tattered than it was in 1953 when I first got it. Ignatius wrote about A.D. 110, 10 years or so after the death of John. He’s speaking here about "certain people" who were beginning to hold to "heterodox opinions" that he deemed "contrary to the mind of God"—strong language for the personal disciple of the last apostle. As nearly as I can come to it, Ignatius says: "These people abstain from the Eucharist as well as from prayer because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again from the dead" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2).

Ignatius was taught by John himself, and the apostolic succession in this case extends to more than the laying on of hands. I find it unlikely to the point of impossibility to believe that Ignatius would hold to a doctrine antithetical to what he had been taught by the Beloved Disciple.

Answered by: Fr. Hal Stockert