Doctrine of Justification

December 13, 1545, marked the beginning of the most famous Ecumenical Councils in the Roman Catholic Church, otherwise known as the Council of Trent. For the next eighteen years, the Roman Catholic Church met intermittently in Trent for the purpose of establishing the formal doctrines of the Catholic Church concerning the role of Scripture and Tradition, the nature of the fall and original sin, Justification, the Sacraments, and the Eucharist in the Mass. At the heart of the Council of Trent was the endeavor to officially define the doctrine of Justification. Over and against the Reformers (holding to justification solely based on the finished work of Jesus Christ with no co-operation of human meritorious works) the Roman Catholic Church endeavored to maintain their doctrinal view of Justification. According Council of Trent's Canon IX,
“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.”1
Canon IX communicates a very important key in Catholic doctrine: that the unbeliever cannot be justified by grace alone; rather, another agent is needed to co-operate with the giver of grace in order for one to be declared justified. At the heart of the Biblical Christian Faith is the doctrine of Justification. And the Epistle to the Hebrews presents Jesus Christ as the high priest who has gone into the Holy of Holies to offer Himself as the once-and-for-all sacrifice for the sins of His people. This paper will contrast the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification as presented in the Council of Trent with its importance on works to the Biblical doctrine of Justification as found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and illustrate that the Roman doctrine contradicts the Biblical doctrine of Justification.
Although the Council of Trent uses language that is similar to Scripture to communicate its view of Justification, one must take notice of how Rome defines the process of Justification. Justification according to the Council of Trent involves a “translation, for that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour.”2 The Council also states that the “translation” cannot occur unless one is regenerated and “born again of water and the Holy Ghost.”3 One can see that the language used, “regeneration,” “born again,” and “adoption,” is identical to the Biblical language used to communicate Justification; however, chapter V clarifies the process of Justification. Chapter V is subtitled “On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.”4 As the title indicates, Justification for the Roman Church begins with a visible and human-centered process. According to Richard P. McBrien’s Catholicism, the means to Justification begins with the preparatory phase of Catechumen. In this stage, the Catechumen is instructed that Jesus Christ desires to bring those who are willing to the light. And with the help of sponsors, the Catechumen receives help in his walk of getting to “know and following” Jesus Christ.5 Interestingly, McBrien specifically says that faith in Jesus Christ is never an individual reality; rather, the Church mediates the relationship between Jesus Christ and the believer.6 Lastly, before partaking in the Sacrament of Baptism, the Catechumen is pronounced adopted by God by the “celebrant” (priest) in the “Rite of Election.”7
The Sacrament of Baptism in the Roman Catholic Church is paramount in imparting justification. According to the Council of Trent, salvation is not conferred and justification not applied unless baptism is administered to an individual. The Council of Trent states in Canon V, “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.”8 The historic and preeminent Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas,who was undoubtedly foundational in the Catholic understanding of baptism, communicates that “baptism is by definition rebirth to spiritual life” and “is principally given to remove inherited sin.”9 Aquinas also says that baptism is the most necessary of all the sacraments and one acquires the “right to approach the Lord's Table” by it.10 And removing any possible ambiguity regarding baptism, Aquinas teaches that “we receive justification in baptism not by force but willingly.”11 Based on the Council of Trent and Aquinas, one can see that salvation, justification, and baptism cannot be separated. Moreover, baptism is the key which opens the door to the enjoyment of sanctification through the sacrament of Confirmation, and the continued participation in grace through the Sacrament of the Eucharist.12
As stated by the Council of Trent, Justification is by faith through God's grace but is never accomplished apart from human meritorious works. Moreover, although one may have been deemed justified by God through the Sacrament of Baptism, one can lose his or her status as justified. Therefore, the Roman Church has instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist as the means by which the pious Catholic can maintain his own justification. The Sacrament of the Eucharist, being the center of life for the pious Roman Catholic, can therefore be properly understood as the most effectual Catholic sacrament. And above all else, McBrien, a Catholic theologian who maintains fidelity to Roman Dogma, makes clear that the Eucharist is the “divine sacrifice” whereby the pious Catholic can experience and testify to others the “mystery of Jesus Christ, and the real nature of the Church.”13
The two main characteristics of the the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist are that the mass is a re-sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and that Christ is physically present in the bread and wine. Moreover, the conception that Christ is physically present in flesh and blood and that Christ is sacrificed anew in the Mass may be the driving force of the Catholic psyche concerning meritorious works: if Christ has to be sacrificed continuously to justify, save, and continue the work of sanctification, naturally the pious Catholic has to engage in meritorious works through participation in the Sacraments. In A Sacramental Spirituality, Bernard Haring comments, “our salvation lies in the thankful fulfillment of our essential task; to sanctify ourselves in the power of the Spirit of holiness that we have received to the honour of God and for the salvation of the whole world.”14 Haring's striking comments bare out the implications of the Catholic Eucharistic theology and of the Sacramental system of Rome as a whole.
The obedient Catholic does not doubt that the purpose of the Eucharist is to consume the literal-physical body and blood of Christ. The Council of Trent in Session XIII, Canon I states, “If anyone denieth, that, in the Sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the Christ; but saith He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or in virtue; let him be anathema.”15 By the Catholic consuming the host, he or she is united with the actual flesh and blood of Christ. The host infuses grace into the individual and produces union in Christ. According to Rome's model, partaking in the Eucharist is necessary, and, without it, the Roman Catholic loses his sense of eternal security.
In conjunction with the Eucharist being the object which confers union with Christ, the Mass is also, as McBrien makes clear, “a true sacrifice, not only of praise and thanksgiving and of commemoration but also of expiation for the living and the dead, without diminishing the value of the sacrifice of Calvary.”16 McBrien says that although the Mass is not a bloody sacrifice like the Cross, the effects of the Mass are the same as the Cross.17 Therefore, receiving Eucharist is necessary for gaining union with Christ and absolution. It is also very important to understand that the historical act of Jesus Christ, although important to the Catholic Church, is only part of a continuous process of salvation. Moreover, if the Mass has the same effect as the historical work of Christ on the Cross, then it could be said that, according to Rome, Christ's sacrificial work continues in the Eucharist.
When the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, specifically Justification, are contrasted with the direct and evident teaching of the Holy Scriptures, a great divide begins to materialize between the two. Whereas the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Justification is by faith through God's grace augmented by meritorious works, the Scriptures bear witness to Justification being strictly based on the gift of faith given through grace. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is a perpetual, bloodless, sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the expiation of the Catholic's sins, even though Scripture attests to Jesus Christ's work on the cross as complete and final. The book of Hebrews, in unity with the rest of Scripture, affirms these truths; Hebrews stands out in great contrast to Roman Catholic Dogma.
One of the most exceptional themes within the Epistle to the Hebrews is that of Jesus Christ as High Priest. In the seventh chapter of Hebrews, the writer is deliberate to contrast Jesus Christ with the Levitical priesthood. Within the cultus of the Old Testament, we see the Levitical priests mediating on behalf of Israel first in the Tabernacle and then in the Temple. As part of the work of mediation, the priests would offer up daily sacrifices to expiate the sins of the people and remove the guilt which stood between the people and God. However, it is clear from chapter VII: 27 that the Levitical Priesthood cannot offer an eternal and perfect sacrifice for the people. The reason the writer of the epistle states that the priest could offer such a sacrifice was because they themselves needed to offer sacrifice for their own sins. In stark contrast to the Levitical priesthood, the writer of Hebrews states, “For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens” (Authorized Version). Moreover, Christ as the perfect and undefiled High Priest does not have to offer daily sacrifices, and He does not have to present a sacrifice to God for His own sins. Therefore, one can see that, based on the text, Christ is sufficient and capable of offering a better sacrifice than the imperfect Levitical priesthood.
To understand the Mass in terms of Catholic Dogma would inevitably mean defining the Mass as “the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross.”18 And if this is the case, then one would have to deduce that a priest would be needed to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist. Moreover, since priests are needed to offer the sacrifice in the Mass, the need for mediation also arises. In fact, a mediatorial priesthood is an obvious established institution within the Roman Church. However, the concept of a mediatorial Roman priesthood is itself doctrinally problematic. In Hebrews VII: 27 the Temple priest had to offer sacrifices for his own sins, a fact indicative of his fallen state, which he shared with the people of Israel. Therefore, if the Old Testament cultus was imperfect, it would follow that the Roman Catholic priesthood is also imperfect because the state of Man has not changed. And if the Roman priest is sinful, he cannot offer a sufficient and eternal sacrifice for the catholic in the Mass. Consequently, the Roman Catholic cultus would find itself in the same condition as the Temple cultus, and would render the Roman priest incapable of meeting the requirements Christ undoubtedly fulfilled.
The writer of Hebrews also draws out a very important truth regarding the work performed within the Old Testament Temple. Regarding the works under the Law, Hebrews X: 1 impresses upon the reader that the sacrifices which the priests offered every year continually could never “make the comers thereunto perfect” (Authorized Version). What is significant about this part of verse one in chapter ten is that the works of the priest were, in themselves, not effective in producing perfection. Roman Catholic doctrine, as taken from its catechisms, is contrary to what Scripture explicitly teaches. The New York Catechism states, “The priest gives penance in Confession, to help me to make up for the temporal punishment I must suffer for my sins. The penance given to me by the priest does not always make full satisfaction for my sins. I should, therefore, do other acts of penance... and try to gain indulgences.”19 On that account the Roman Catholic is falsely granted the power to work out his own salvation. Nevertheless, the Catholic system of meritorious works continues to beg the question regarding the sufficiency of works according to the Biblical model. Both models cannot be right; either the Catholic is correct regarding the efficacy of meritorious works, and we must acquiesce to its teaching, or the Scriptures are correct and we must reject Rome's doctrine.
Christ as High Priest offers the satisfactory sacrifice to the Father for the sins of His people. Because Christ, in His active and passive obedience, fulfilled all that was required of the Father in the Law, there is no need for continued sacrifices. Hebrews X:12 declares, “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” (Authorized Version). There can be no doubt that what Jesus Christ accomplished in His ministry was nothing less than full redemption for those for whom He died. The immediate evidence for Christ's finished work is the portion of the verse which states that Christ “sat down” at the right hand of the Father. In spite of Scripture's clear pronouncement of Christ's finished work, Rome persists to affirm that the Mass is a genuine sacrifice of Christ for the remission of sins. Subsequently, if the Mass is a true sacrifice of Christ for the purpose of absolving sin, then Christ's has not accomplished redemption.
For the believer there can be no assurance of faith if Christ has not accomplished redemption. In fact, their can be no basis for salvation aside from Christ's work on the cross. The writer of Hebrews wrote to a community in the midst of a severe emergency: they were doubting the efficacy of the once-and-for all sacrifice of Christ, and because they doubted, they were tempted to return to the shadow of the Old Testament cultus. In order to combat the problem of doubt within the community of the Hebrews, the writer emphatically asserts nothing is more secure than Christ' incarnation, death, and resurrection. Declaring the truth of Christ, the writer of Hebrews states in VII: 25, “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Authorized Version). The Greek verbs παντελες and δυναται within verse twenty-seven convey some extraordinary points. First, δυναται denotes the ability to perform an action based on power that is inherent in the person performing the action. Second, the Greek verb παντελες carries with it the connotation of perfection and completeness. Therefore, Jesus Christ in verse twenty-seven is being described as having might and power based on His own constitution to perform the action of saving perfectly and without fail.
Because the Roman Catholic Church teaches that justification can be lost, and the work of Christ is not accomplished perfectly, the pious Catholic cannot be offered assurance of salvation. Instead of assurance, the Catholic must walk a line of condemnation and rely on a system that promises to keep those bound to it always working. And although the Catholic may strive to walk piously and persist in his obedience to the Church and Sacraments, the one truth he is assured of according to Catholic Dogma is that he can lose his justification and forfeit salvation. Over and against the doctrine of insecurity, the writer of Hebrews announced the good news of the Gospel. For those who trust in the work of Christ, the writer states that Jesus saves to the “uttermost” (Authorized Version, Hebrews VII:25). And the saving that Christ brings to His people is absolute and without question.
The Council of Trent cannot be doubted is the central foundation for Roman Catholic Dogma. Working against the Reformation that exploded in the 16th century, the Council of Trent was expedient to counter the radical notions that the Reformers were preaching all throughout Europe. Between December 13, 1545 and December 4, 1563 the Council of Trent met to properly organize Roman Catholic Dogma. The result of the Council of Trent's eighteen years of labor was what would be properly understood to be the foundational decrees for the life and faith of all Roman Catholics. Central to the work of the Council of Trent was the definition of the doctrine of Justification, the importance of faith and works in salvation, and the necessity of the Sacraments.
The Council of Trent made it clear that Justification is a process that begins at the stage of Catachumen. As a Catachumen, an individual seeking to be initiated into the Roman Catholic Church is instructed in the foundational doctrines of the Church before the Sacraments are administered. The first Sacrament to be dispensed is that of Baptism, which is not only the proper entrance into the Roman Church, but also, as the Council of Trent's articles of faith demonstrate, is the outward declaration of justification and the remission of sins. However, though one may be declared justified through the Sacrament of Baptism, one's status as justified and under God's grace is not secured. In order to retain one's salvation, the other Sacraments must be kept, especially the Eucharist. The reason the Eucharist is so important is because through the Mass, the obedient Catholic gains union with Christ. The Mass is also the primary means by which the Catholic's sins can be absolved, because it is a efficacious as the Cross. But if the Mass is as valid as the historical act of the cross, then Christ's work is not finished. And the logical conclusion of the Mass is that the Roman Catholic can never have assurance of salvation, because Christ's death has to be continuously observed.
In complete opposition to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification, the Scriptures demonstrate that assurance is granted in the concluded work of Jesus Christ. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ is communicated to be the High Priest who sits at the right hand of the Father. Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father because, as the perfect High Priest, Jesus Christ presented Himself as the perfect sacrifice that washes away the past, present, and future sins of His people. Dealing with a community of Christians that sought to engage in a religion of works righteousness and reject the power of Christ's redemptive work, the writer of Hebrews admonished them to hold fast to the cross because there can be no assurance aside from Christ. If the writer of Hebrews rejected the notion of meritorious works and assurance aside from Christ, then it is logical to conclude that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification is truly hostile to the Biblical message and therefore should be rejected.




















Works Consulted

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae - A Concise Translation. Notre Dame: Christia
Classics, Incorporated, 1989. Print.
Baum, Gregory. Faith and Doctrine: A Contemrary View. Paramus: Paulist Press, 1969. Print.
Boettner, Loraine. Roman Catholicism. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1962.
Print.
Fiorenza, Francis Schussler. Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives
(Systematic Theology Vol. 1). Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1991. Print.
Fiorenza, Francis Schussler. Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives (Systematic Theology Vol. 2). Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1991. Print.
McBrien, Richard P., Catholicism. Minneapolis: Winston Press, 1980. Print.
Neuner, Josef. The Teachings of the Catholic Church as Contained in Her Documents. Alba House: Alba House, 1967. Print.
Smith, George D.. The Teaching of the Catholic Church (A Summary of Catholic Doctrine, Volume II). New York: Macmillan, 1949. Print.
Waterworth, J., The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Ecumenical Council of Trent, Chicago: The Christian Symbolic Publication.