A SELF-REFUTING CATHOLIC ARGUMENT

There is an old saying that basically states, “He shot himself in the foot.”  This is when someone inadvertently undermines his own chances of success or he achieves the opposite of his intended outcome. 

I would say that this is exactly what happens when applied to the Catholic Church when they put forth their “certainty of the canon” argument.

As for as I can remember, I have never heard of, spoken with, or met a Catholic who did not believe in the supposed NEED for infallible certainty on the list of books in the canon of Scripture.  This basically means that one cannot have any meaningful assurance that we have the right Bible books unless an “infallible source” (like the Catholic Church) infallibly declares exactly which books are intended to be in the canon.  It appears that this is a universal concept within Catholicism. 

One Catholic source, which bears the Catholic seals of approval (the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur) states:

“Only the Church, the infallible bearer of tradition, can furnish us invincible certainty as to the number of Divinely inspired books of both the Old and the New Testament.” (The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, online, under the heading, “Scripture”)

A few months ago I posted an article concerning the canon and Catholicism’s claims, and I presented two major premises to demonstrate the error of the Catholic Church’s teaching.  You can see it here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2025/10/the-two-fatal-flaws-of-catholics-when.html

Today, I will again address two premises concerning the Catholic Church’s canon, but with a different twist.

Two Premises

Major premise #1 – The Catholic Church has always proposed a NEED for infallible certainty of the canon (as just mentioned).  And Catholics (supposedly) have this infallible level of certainty while Protestants don’t.  Note that this idea also assumes that any kind of “sufficient certainty” on the canon can never be enough.

Major premise #2 – It is clear that there was no infallibly-declared canon until the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546:

“According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church.  This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent).  Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon.” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, page 29, Copyright 1967; under “Canon, Biblical”)

By the way, this particular encyclopedia also contains the Catholic seals of approval.

Two Questions

•      So, the first big question is, how did the Catholic Church operate in the first 1500 years of its existence if there was any kind of doubt about its canon?

To answer that, they will often claim something like they were able to operate on a broadly accepted 4^th century consensus.  They were also able to make use of local councils, apostolic tradition, the Church fathers, the living Magisterium of the Church, etc., etc. 

•        Ok, so this brings us to the second big question:

Exactly what kind of certainty did these things (consensus, councils, tradition, etc.) actually produce for the Church?

And the answer to that question is most important.  It seems to me that there can only be three ways to answer this question, so here is what I believe the possible answers are:

    1) Either, these things produced infallible certainty on the canon for the Church before Trent, or

    2) These things produced reasonable/sufficient certainty on the canon for the Church before Trent, or

    3) These things produced no certainty at all on the canon for the Church before Trent

I don’t see any other possibilities. 

Ok, if the Catholic Church answers with #1 above, they would be lying, since they know and agree that the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) was the earliest time that the canon of Scripture was infallibly declared/recognized (as described by the New Catholic Encyclopedia above).

If the Catholic Church answers with #2, they would have to admit that sufficient certainty is indeed good enough and that Protestants were right all along concerning this.

If the Catholic Church answers with #3, they’d have to admit that they had a bad, or false, canon that gave them no certainty, and all their books (and the teachings therein) are in danger of being false.

This produces a trilemma for the Catholic Church and puts them in a very awkward position.  All three answers are embarrassing for them, but the best and most accurate answer of the three is to agree with the Protestants and the possibility of a sufficient certainty being good enough. 

But if they do this, it questions the very need for infallible certainty in the first place, and Major premise #1 would be false.  Either way, whether they deny or admit that Protestants have a sufficient canon, Catholics are trapped by their own argument.

If infallible certainty was never needed before A.D. 1546, it is not needed now.  This teaching of the Catholic Church is indeed a self-refuting argument. 

 

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S FALSE CONCEPT OF “INITIAL” JUSTIFICATION

Salvation is rightly considered the most important spiritual topic there is.  We all want to one day make it into Heaven and have everlasting life with God (John 3:16).  And it goes without saying that we would also want to avoid the place the Bible calls Hell, wherein is everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46).

But there are disagreements, even among those who call themselves Christians, concerning the requirement(s) to enter the narrow gate (Matthew 7:13-14).  So I would like to address an odd situation in Catholic apologetics concerning salvation. 

Both Catholics and Protestants agree with the idea that, for Christians, we were saved (past tense – Ephesians 2:8), that we are being saved (present tense – 1 Corinthians 1:18), and that we will ultimately be saved (future tense – Matthew 10:22).

We all believe that, in our salvation journey, there is 1) a distinct beginning, 2) a growth process, and 3) a final destination. 

The Protestant View

Generally, the Protestant believes that the first stage is “justification,” wherein he believes/trusts in the full and sufficient work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  The Protestant surrenders to the will of God with love and thanksgiving and God gives him a new heart, with new desires.  This justification is obtained apart from works (Romans 3:28) and is a one-time event, not a process. 

The second stage is what the Protestant calls “sanctification,” which is a process (1 Thessalonians 4:1-7).  Here is where he will, out of a thankful heart, start to do good works for God as he grows closer and closer to Him, conforming to the image of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18).  And even then, his works are not done to gain, earn or merit salvation, but he does good works out of a thankful heart because he is already saved! 

And thirdly, he enters Heaven, glorified with a new body to be with the Lord forever (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

The Catholic View

The odd situation of which I spoke earlier is that the Catholic Church splits justification into three parts: 1) “initial” justification, 2) “ongoing/progressive” justification (which they also call sanctification), and then 3) “final justification.”   

In the first phase, the Catholic begins his initial justification by being baptized (normally, as an infant).  Interestingly, the Church claims that initial justification is not obtained by either works of any kind or even by faith.  See here:

“… but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification – whether faith or works – merit the grace itself of justification.  For if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapter VIII)

Second, in the ongoing/progressive justification phase, his works are now able to merit “an increase of justification” for himself. 

And third, at death, the Catholic experiences final justification, which will usher him into Heaven (or more likely, Purgatory, to be first cleansed of temporal sins).

Baptism and Initial Justification

So, according to the Catholic paradigm, you get no merit from either faith or works that are done before the initial justification stage.  Yet, this same initial justification is obtained by water baptism (CCC #1992; Council of Trent, Sixth Session, chapters 6-7), which is, ironically, a ritual/work!

The Catholic Church has it backward.  The Bible says that salvation begins with faith and no works (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5; Galatians 2:16).  But the Church says that salvation begins with a work (i.e., baptism) and no faith (Council of Trent, chapter VIII, above).  There seems to be some kind of disconnect here.

What About Abraham?

As I said, Catholics believe that there are “levels” of justification.  They say that someone can receive justification and then later have an “increase” of that justification, again and again.  In their quest to prove these different levels of justification, they will often point to the example of Abraham.

The Catholic will say that Abraham was justified at least three times in Scripture, i.e., in Genesis 12:1-3, in Genesis 15:6, and in Genesis 22:1-14.  

The first time, in Genesis 12:1-3, God spoke to Abraham, telling him to leave his family and his country and to go to an unknown land.  God also told Abraham that He would make a great nation from him.  Abraham, looking forward to the promise, must have been justified about this time, because of his faith and his willingness to obey God.

I would actually tend to agree with Catholics at this point, that Abraham was probably justified here (or at least just prior to this point). 

The second time, in Genesis 15:6, Catholics will say that Abraham was “further” justified, because here God tells Abraham that his ancestors would be as the stars in Heaven, “And he believed in the Lord; and He counted it to him for righteousness.”

And, of course, this same verse is quoted by the apostle Paul in Romans 4:3, where he emphasizes the point that Abraham was justified by faith, and not by his works. 

But is Paul really using this particular verse to point out that Genesis 15:6 marked an increase of the justification that Abraham already had?  Was he saying that Abraham was more justified at this point, or that he was receiving another “installment” of justification?  No, God was simply re-stating His promise to Abraham, and Paul was just showing that Abraham’s faith here exemplified the same type of faith/trust that he exhibited earlier in Genesis 12.  Paul was simply pointing out Abraham’s continuing faith in God and his non-dependence on work.

Just a few verses later, the apostle Paul also mentions David (v. 6-8) and references David’s repentance after he sinned with Bathsheba, quoting Psalm 32.  But again, Psalm 32 was not the time that David was justified.  He was justified and made right with God long before this particular time. 

[Addendum – added on 03/11/2026]

{If doing good works causes an “increase” in one’s justification (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon 24), then why did the apostle Paul specifically say that Abraham was NOT justified by his circumcision (Romans 4:9-11)?  Was not Abraham’s circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14) a good, faith-filled and God-ordained work of obedience?  Yes indeed!  But, according to Paul, this work of obedience was never considered an increase in his justification, and had nothing to do with it.  If his good (and painful) work of circumcision did not add to his “ongoing” justification, then there must not BE such a concept of an “increase of justification!”}

Paul’s whole point in mentioning these two great men of faith was that they were examples of someone who is credited with righteousness through faith/believing/trusting, apart from their good works (Romans 3:28; 4:4-5).  There is no reason to believe that this was about some kind of “progressive” justification, as Catholics assert.

Catholics will say that the third time Abraham was justified was in Genesis 22:1-14 where Abraham offers his son Isaac on the altar to be sacrificed.  Thankfully, God stopped him from going through with it, but here Abraham proved his faith in God by being willing to sacrifice his son.  This passage is referenced in James 2:21-24, which includes the idea that a man is justified by his works (v. 24). 

So, what does it mean to be “justified by works” and not just faith?  We can see from the context of James 2 that he is referring to the idea of how we know if a person has true faith or a fake/dead faith (v. 17, 20, 26).  So, this whole section in James (v. 14-26) is about the proof or demonstration of one’s faith.  This section is not about how to be saved, but it’s about observing the fruit of those professing to be saved.  James is saying that a man is justified by works in the sense of being vindicated, or proven, by his works.  This type of “justification” is seen elsewhere in Scripture (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:29; 10:29; 16:15), and the context of James makes it obvious that he was referring to vindication.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/01/faith-alone-part-2.html

So, saying that the life of Abraham proves that a person is justified multiple times is simply not true.

Funny how the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent (which focuses heavily on justification) never uses, or even mentions, Abraham as an example of one who is “increasing in justification,” as many Catholics try to use the term!

Wrong Category

The apostle Paul made it abundantly clear that there are no works done in the “justification” category:

“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28)

“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Romans 4:4-5)

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Galatians 2:16). 

Again, according to Holy Scripture, in justification, there are no works that merit.  But because of the Catholic Church’s unbiblical splitting of justification, it allows their works to merit salvation in the justification stage.  This is dangerous because it (supposedly) allows our works to “merit” what only the work of Jesus on the cross could possibly merit.  

Just a side note: Catholics will also play word games with the term “merit,” as well.  Another topic for another day.

Faith Working in Love

Also, Catholics love to use Galatians 5:6 when debating justification, because it says that we are saved by faith which works through love.  And they’ll say, “See, works (of love) must be involved/present along with your faith for you to be saved!” 

But context will demonstrate otherwise:

Galatians 5:

(v. 3) “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

(v. 4) “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

(v. 5) “For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

(v. 6) “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

And the Protestant will point out that v. 4 says that if you try to be saved using the law/commandments/works, you are “fallen from grace” (the NASV says “severed from Christ”)!  Therefore, salvation/justification is by faith, apart from works.  But this same faith will then afterward produce works of love, but the works themselves don’t save.  Very simple.

But the Catholic may say, “But this passage is only describing initial justification – that’s why works have no merit here!”

But remember, this passage contains faith, but Trent says that neither works NOR faith are used in the initial justification stage!  Therefore, Galatians 5:3-6 is not at all talking about this mythical “initial justification” phase.  Sorry, my Catholic friends, but you can’t have it both ways.

This is also how Catholics tend to deal with other critical passages on justification that speak of salvation by faith apart from the merit of works, for example, Romans 3:28; 4:5; 4:6; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9.  Catholics will say that these refer to the initial justification phase, yet in all of these passages, faith is clearly in view and baptism (which is the only thing that supposedly merits in this stage) shows up in none of these passages!  So, no, these key passages are not referring to this artificially fabricated phase of “initial” justification.

Can Works Merit Grace in Any Stage?

After reading books like Romans and Galatians, one can see that there is a real problem with a “faith plus works” salvation system.  And that is exactly what the Catholic Church has.  But when the Church uses this deceptive “initial justification” concept, it muddies the water concerning the role of works and faith.

But the following passage makes it very clear that works do not save in any part of our salvation journey:

Galatians 3:

(v. 1) “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

(v. 2) “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

(v. 3) “Are ye so foolish?  Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”

Notice (v. 2) that there are only two options: you are either saved by works of the law (which is impossible with mere men), or by faith.  He then equates the law (works) with operating by the flesh (v. 3).  Paul is basically saying to us, “You must start in the Spirit (faith/trusting in the cross – v. 1), and you never leave that option – you continue in your faith by never relying on works to save you.  You are made perfect (completed) by trusting in the gospel message, not in your works.”

Again, this passage is clearly telling us that IN NO PHASE of our salvation journey do works contribute to our salvation.  Works are definitely present in our lives, and we will get heavenly rewards for them, but the free gift of God (eternal life) is only obtained through faith. 

In other words, we start salvation by faith, we continue/maintain that same salvation by faith and end it by faith.  In this way, we are telling Jesus that His work/suffering on the cross was sufficient to save us and that He gets all the credit!

Conclusion

According to Scripture, there exists a justification phase and there is a sanctification phase, ultimately followed by the glorification phase.  Nowhere do we see anything called “initial justification” where faith is not required. 

There is nothing in the New Testament that tells us to “grow in justification,” or that you can be “further justified.”  Therefore, Catholics have no biblical reason to split justification into two or more categories. 

Catholics recognize that having a “works-based salvation” sounds bad.  That’s why they are quick to deny this Protestant accusation toward them.  And with the concept of “initial” justification, they feel that they can temporarily avoid the stigma of that accusation. 

If a policeman came into the home of a drug user and the homeowner told him, “But officer, I don’t have any drugs in my kitchen!”  That may be true, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have drugs in another room of his home.

In a similar way, just because you Catholics don’t have works that merit salvation in one of your three categories of the salvation journey, doesn’t mean that you don’t have works that merit.  You still have a “works-based salvation,” it’s just in another category.

Yes, Catholics often deny it, but they do indeed embrace a “faith plus works” salvation.  But a faith that will later result in good works is not the same thing as a “faith plus works” system.

So, the big question is this: Is “initial justification,” as described by the Catholic Church, a biblical concept?  And the answer is no.

 

THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION

Today, we will be dealing with the second in our series on the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, again in no particular order.  In this one, I am addressing the sacrament of Confirmation, sometimes called the “Sacrament of Christian Maturity.”  This is certainly not the most talked-about sacrament, and even many Catholics are prone to misunderstand it.

So, what is Catholic Confirmation, actually?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that Confirmation is one of three “sacraments of initiation,” baptism and Holy Communion being the other two.  It also claims that Confirmation is necessary for the “completion of baptismal grace.” (CCC #1285)

Confirmation is a ritual of the Church that claims that:

-        It roots us more deeply in the divine filiation which makes us cry, “Abba! Father!"  

-        It unites us more firmly to Christ;

-        It increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit in us;

-        It renders our bond with the Church more perfect

-        It gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as true witnesses of Christ, to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of the Cross. (CCC #1303)

Not only that, but the Catechism claims that “… the effect of the sacrament of Confirmation IS the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit as once granted to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.” (CCC #1302 – Emphasis added)

The Catholic Catechism also states that Confirmation causes the seal of the Holy Spirit to be given to the Catholic. (CCC #1293 and CCC #1295)

Is it important for the Catholic to believe in Confirmation?  Very much so.  The Council of Trent states that if a person says that Confirmation is not instituted by Christ, that person is considered “anathema.” (Session VII, Canon I, “On the Sacraments in General”)

By the way, an anathema is the severest form of excommunication in the Catholic Church, where one is eternally condemned to Hell unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction.

Well, at least these things are what the Catholic Church claims about Confirmation.  Ok, so that’s a pretty weighty teaching, being mandatory and all for every Catholic to believe.  But does Catholic Confirmation actually do all those things listed above?  And if it does, how?  And, most importantly, is it indeed established by Jesus Christ?

So what does Jesus say about this Confirmation event?  If you look in the pages of the New Testament, you will not find any such ritual.  You will find that there is no single specific event that does all these things mentioned above.  Every Christian’s journey starts with salvation, that is, when justification is imputed to him by faith and his heart is changed by God.  After this happens, sanctification is the process where we are, over time, “rooted more deeply” and “united more firmly” to Christ, as we strive to please Him.  If a person is truly saved, the process of sanctification will indeed happen, whether there is a particular ceremony or not.

As far as the gifts of the Holy Spirit being increased in someone, Scripture tells us that these gifts are given as God wills (1 Corinthians 12:11) – He, alone, does the choosing of the gift(s), and He alone decides at what point in life to give them to you.  There is nothing in Scripture about them coming from a formal church ritual.

Catholic statements about Confirmation are indeed tall claims, and since the Catholic Church claims that there is a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Confirmation event, akin to the event on the Day of Pentecost, it must necessarily be a miracle, right?  If this is true, is there any real evidence that the person confirmed is any closer to Christ, or that His gifts have, on that day, increased in that person’s life?  Have all the recipients of Confirmation spoken in other languages as they did on the Day of Pentecost?  Has it caused them to do miracles like those in the early church?  You see, real miracles, like those found in the Bible, always had clear evidence to back them up, and were not just empty claims.

To have a group go through a formal ritual like Confirmation and tell them that a special miracle had to have happened (without proof) is deceptive.     

Reality

In reality, the bottom line is this: the Catholic Church has, in the ceremony of Confirmation, a powerless person in an unbiblical role, performing an empty ritual, conferring fake gifts to a (more often than not) clueless recipient.

That may sound unkind, but let me explain.  The powerless person is the Catholic priest or bishop and he is powerless because there is no biblical backing for this “sacrament.”  Furthermore, his is indeed an unbiblical role, since there is no ministerial priesthood in the New Testament.  The ritual is empty because there is no such thing as a ritual, ceremony or ordinance that provides grace for a person.  Rituals are works, and grace does not come through works (1 Peter 5:5-6), therefore, this ceremony’s “gifts” are fake.  Concerning the recipient being clueless, most of the time, these are young, pre-teen children, who can hardly be considered “mature” when receiving this sacrament, even though it is often called the sacrament of maturity.  The Catholic may say that Confirmation is just the beginning of his walk of maturity.  Well, perhaps so, but there is no biblical evidence that Catholic Confirmation is the starting point.

Now, I’m not saying that the ritual of Confirmation has never had any meaning for the “confirmand” (the person being confirmed), but that it simply does not provide grace, as it claims.  I’m also not saying that the Holy Spirit could never work in the heart of any recipient during this ceremony.  It is possible.  I am not limiting the Holy Spirit’s ability to work in someone whose heart is right, but the Holy Spirit does not give grace to a person because he goes through a particular ceremony, especially an unbiblical one.

Again, grace is not obtained through rituals (Proverbs 3:34; James 4:6) and therefore, sacraments cannot be a means of grace (Romans 11:6).

Conclusion

Catholics will claim that their Confirmation is biblical, since its ceremony uses the laying on of hands and anointing oil.  But that doesn’t prove anything.  Any unbiblical group can do the same.

The apostle Paul does mention that Jesus Christ will “confirm” the believer until the end.  But this is an ongoing thing, not a one-time ritual.  Paul is simply saying that the Christian needs to be “confirmed” in the sense that he is strengthened, established, kept and sustained in the faith (1 Corinthians 1:6-8).  THAT is biblical confirmation.

The Catholic Church has a system of many rituals that its members depend on from cradle to grave.  This system supposedly doles out God’s grace through sacraments, piece by piece, in periodic installments.  And they claim that it is only through the Church that one can get these saving sacraments, thus shackling its members to “Mother Church.”  Catholic Confirmation is only one of those sacraments.

But remember, real and biblical salvation doesn’t come in installments or rituals.  It simply comes by FAITH in the Person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary (John 3:16; Romans 4:4-5; Ephesians 2:8-9).

See also this link concerning sacraments:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html

And this link on the priesthood:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/03/priesthood.html

 

THE CONCEPT OF MERIT IN CATHOLICISM

 

Catholics and Protestants certainly disagree on their understanding of justification (salvation).  I would consider salvation the most important biblical topic there is, so it would be wise to delve into this subject. 

But how does one get saved?  How will anyone make it to Heaven and enjoy eternal life with God?  The Bible teaches that a person is saved by the grace (unmerited favor) of God, through faith (Ephesians 2:8-10) in the work and suffering of Jesus Christ on the cross.  This faith is apart from the merit of works that we do (Romans 3:28; Titus 3:5).  We believe that good works will be present in the life of a Christian, but they are a result of one’s salvation – never a means to cause salvation.  Many (but not all) Protestants hold to this view.  Again, it is by faith alone, i.e., apart from the merit of one’s works.

But Catholics see it differently.  The Catholic Church teaches that a person is saved by grace, through faith – so far, so good – but he needs to add certain works to the equation, and this is where they deviate from the biblical position (Romans 4:4-5).  These works, they believe, merit salvation through an increase of justification with each grace-filled work you do.  So, to briefly sum up the Catholic view, salvation equals “faith plus works.”

This is a true assessment of what they teach, but many Catholics will say, “No, we don’t teach that we work for our salvation,” and they will point out that the Council of Trent specifically says:

 “…and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification." (Chapter VIII)

And they respond, “See, not justified by our works.”

Contradictions

Ok, sounds good, right?  But the Council of Trent goes on to say elsewhere:

“If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.” (Canon XXIV)

And again:

“If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.” (CANON XXXII)

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC #2068), Trent teaches that observance of the Commandments (which are works) is necessary for salvation.  And the Catechism footnotes Lumen Gentium, a dogmatic constitution of the Catholic Church, which reads:

“Bishops, as successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation by faith, baptism and the fulfilment of the commandments.” (Chapter III, Par. 24 – Emphasis added)

Furthermore, the Catechism says:

“… The Church does not know of any means other than baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude..." (CCC #1257)

And again:

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation…” (CCC #1129)

Ok, the above quotes tell us that good works (including Catholic sacraments and obeying the Commandments) merit grace for Catholics and these are a cause of salvation.  How much plainer can it be that there is a double standard here in official Catholic teaching?  The Catholic Church seems to be speaking out of both sides of its mouth.  First, they say justification is not by works, then they say that it is!  How does the Catholic Church solve this dilemma? 

Enter the Catholic View of Merit

Catholics will say that the Council of Trent meant that there are no works done before justification that can save a person – only those done afterward will save/justify. 

But wait a minute!  Why does one need to be justified after he’s already been justified?  Why be justified again?  This is what the Council of Trent means when it speaks of an “increase” of justification.  According to this, a Catholic can be “justified” thousands of times, i.e., every time he performs a “grace-filled” work (which produces merit).  And each time this happens, he gets “more justified” – they don’t use this term, but that’s what it means!  So, theirs is actually a “point system” which earns salvation.

Now, Catholics don’t like to use the term “earn” when speaking of salvation.  This is too obviously unacceptable, so they prefer to use the term “merit” instead.

But if there is any doubt, one can go to almost any thesaurus or dictionary to find that the terms “earn” and “merit” are synonyms.  They mean the same thing!  Splitting hairs with fancy Latin terms doesn’t change that fact.

However, Catholics make an artificial distinction between earning salvation and “meriting” salvation.  They split the definition of merit into three different forms:

Strict merit – Like what Jesus has done on the cross.  He is the only One who could actually earn salvation for us.  An example of strict merit would be your boss owing you a paycheck because you truly earned it by working.  Your work was equal to the payment.  According to the Catholic Church, only Jesus can have this type of merit.

Condign merit – This is where God owes us something only because He has promised it.  I heard one Catholic compare it to a young son who rakes the leaves for his dad.  The dad gives him much more than it is worth.  The son didn’t really earn this amount of money, but the dad pays his son because of his promise to give him something.

Congruent merit – This is the lowest kind of merit.  Perhaps something wasn’t promised to you by God, but He gives it to you simply because of His kindness and His loving nature.  It’s just “fitting” that He would do this.  That’s the only reason for your meriting it.  Someone described it as “not precisely merit, but well-founded expectation.”

Are They Biblical?

Ok, so what do we make of these three distinctions?  Are they biblical, or are Catholics just splitting hairs and making up definitions? 

I agree with their meaning of “strict” merit and that only Jesus can achieve this – actually, I think that, of the three meanings above, this is the only biblical definition of merit.  But is there even such a thing as condign and congruent merit when it comes to salvation?  No, not at all.  Biblically speaking, they do not, and cannot, apply toward salvation/justification. 

Someone could possibly use these terms to make a case for earthly or physical things, or even for the rewards we will receive in Heaven, but not for salvation, itself.  We’re not talking about something as trivial as raking the leaves here.  Eternal life simply cannot be earned or merited by us.

The Promise Tells Me So

God did indeed promise salvation, so it is, in a very limited sense, owed (IF one meets the condition).  But what is the condition of that promise?  Catholics conveniently overlook that part when they talk about merit.  Their own concept of merit is read into the promise. 

But the required condition for salvation is a changed heart and surrendering to God through faith, while putting aside the (supposed) merit of your works so that you cannot boast (Romans 3:27; Ephesians 2:9).  No boasting means no merit!  The promise of salvation is based on FAITH ALONE. 

God makes a promise (salvation) and clearly tells us how to get it (by faith).  The Catholic Church then takes that promise and injects into it the idea of “condign merit,” just because a promise is involved.  They are focusing on the promise, but ignoring the way to get it, as revealed by God!  Again, it is a free gift (Romans 4:16; 5:15,18; 6:23), not something you merit.

You cannot say that you have merited something just because a promise is attached.  If a rich man promises to give an undeserving poor man a billion dollars, would the poor man dare tell him that he merited it simply because it was promised to him?  The rich man would be utterly insulted, and rightly so.  How much more is it an insult to Almighty God when anyone feels that they have in any way merited His free gift?

Defining Grace

Catholics believe that they can merit a measure of grace each time they do a good work.  But the concept of “meriting grace” is incoherent, irrational and inconsistent.  It is an oxymoron, just like the following terms are: imperfect perfection, divided unity, virtual reality, silent noise, etc.  It is a self-refuting and meaningless phrase.  By definition, grace cannot be deserved, earned or merited.  Concerning salvation, Romans 11:6 tells us:

“But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, since otherwise grace is no longer grace.” (NASV)

I’m sorry, my Catholic friends, but it can’t get any clearer than this.  It is either grace/faith… or it is works/earning/merit.  If it is one of them, then it cannot be the other, also.  They are complete opposites. You are either on one side or the other.  So it can’t be “faith plus works.”  

I find it amazing that the Council of Trent actually quotes Romans 11:6 in Chapter 8 of the Sixth Session.  How can anyone push “faith plus works” after reading this verse?  It is incredible that they would annul their own position by pointing to this passage.

Paul Destroys the “Faith Plus Works” Error!

The Catholic concept that good works save you after being justified utterly contradicts Galatians 3:1-3:

1 - “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?”

2 - “This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?” 

3 - “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

The apostle Paul made it absolutely clear to the Galatians that their salvation was not started by works and not perfected (or completed) by works.  It was by the Holy Spirit, through faith.  “The flesh” that Paul mentions in v. 3 was adding something to the gospel.

Stop and think: The sin of the Judaizers (who were influencing the Galatians) was literally ADDING GOOD WORKS (circumcision and following the Commandments – Acts 15:1, 5) TO THE GOSPEL IN ORDER TO BE SAVED.  Please let this sink in.  Was anything wrong with these works?  No, they were God-ordained works, good works, works that were normally pleasing to Him.  But God’s work of salvation is not completed by your works!  He doesn’t need man's works to save us.  Faith/trusting in His work on the cross is sufficient.

So, according to the apostle Paul, there are no works at any stage of your Christian walk that save/justify.  Not before, and not after, as Galatians 3:3 indicates.  The Galatians were guilty of adding to the gospel of grace.  Adding anything (even good works) to the cross is what the book of Galatians condemns.

Conclusion

The Catholic system of merit is a false system.  There are no “levels” of justification.  There is no “increase” of justification.  Justification happens the precise moment a person gets saved, and it is a one-time event.  According to Scripture, it is sanctification that’s a process, not justification (Philippians 2:12-13; 3:12-13; Hebrews 10:14).

The Catholic Church’s concept of merit is so warped, so far from biblical standards that it includes the “Treasury of Merit.”  According to this teaching, not only can a Catholic’s merit save him, but his “excess merit” can be applied to save OTHERS, as well:

"… In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord… In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body." (CCC #1477 – Emphasis added)

The Catholic Church is guilty of re-defining merit, thus perverting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

FLINGING ANATHEMAS

There is a big push today in the Catholic Church for ecumenism.  According to the Oxford dictionary of English, ecumenism is “the principle or aim of promoting unity among the world’s Christian churches.”  In fact, not only are they interested in uniting with Christian denominations, but with those in other world religions, as well.  So, how would this unity with other religions affect the groups involved?  Would they each be able to keep their respective beliefs or would they have to change their doctrines in order to unify?

A Schoolyard Story

There were several elementary school kids playing a game together on the schoolyard.  One of them was older, bigger and stronger than all the others.  Although all the kids knew the rules of the game, the big kid was cheating.  Not only was it quite obvious that the big kid was cheating, but his cheating was getting worse and worse.  But no one dared to point out his dishonesty, since they were afraid of him and didn’t want to be kicked out of the game.  Finally, a few of the other kids had enough!  They must face this cheating giant and confront his dishonesty.  

The group was relieved that someone finally spoke up.  But after their protest (which humiliated him) the big kid not only continued cheating, but he began to create ridiculous new rules for the game to his advantage, while all the others were harshly treated when they didn’t give in to his unfair demands and his new rules.  He was showing his true colors by demonstrating his childishness.  In any case, no one wants to play with a deceiving cheater.

An Analogy

The story above is an analogy (although not perfect) of something that actually happened in history.  The Catholic Church was a large and powerful force in the 1500’s.  She had no equal in the religious world.  Not only was she corrupt, but the corruption kept increasing.  It seemed that no one dared to point out her corruption, lest they be kicked out of the church (excommunicated), and therefore, be unable to partake of her sacraments and lose “access to Heaven.”  Finally, a few men (later known as reformers) had had enough of this corrupt giant.  They were going to confront the Catholic Church concerning her unbiblical teachings and her corruption, thus starting the Protestant Reformation.  The people were relieved that someone finally spoke up and this movement caused many to leave the Catholic Church after hearing biblical truth.

But the Catholic Church didn’t take this lying down.  After the reformers’ protest, which humiliated and angered the Church, she began to persecute the reformers and made ridiculous and unscriptural demands on these “protesters.”  The Catholic Church didn’t want to play by the biblical rules, so she started the “Counter Reformation” and established the Council of Trent in 1545.  In this council, she issued multiple “anathemas” (formal curses) to those who refused to play by the Church’s rules, thus demonstrating her childishness and her unwillingness to abide by Scripture.  Again, no one wants to play with a deceiving cheater.

“Let Him be Anathema!”

But what exactly were these anathemas with which the Catholic Church was threatening these protesters?  According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, an anathema is:

“A formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person or denouncing a doctrine.”

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it is:

“A ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication.”

According to the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, an anathema from the Church is declaring the gravest, most serious, form of excommunication possible within the Catholic Church… an excommunication which eternally condemns the person to Hell… unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction.

The word “anathema” is used 150 times in the Council of Trent (including a couple of times using the variant, “anathematize”).  The anathemas of the Council of Trent pertain to, and protected, teachings like the canon (list of Bible books) of the Catholic Bible, veneration of saints, relics and “sacred images,” indulgences, the Catholic priesthood, the Mass, the Eucharist, sacraments, the Catholic view of justification (salvation), and original sin.  Interestingly, they seemed to focus their anathemas on those who were against these mostly Catholic ideas, desiring to maintain their unbiblical teachings and (through the power of anathema) force people into accepting them.

Catholics will tell us today that these anathemas were intended only for Catholics, since it is an excommunication (they can’t excommunicate non-members), but in practice it is obvious that the anathemas were directed toward the protesters and their biblical arguments.

But what about the unity that we mentioned at the beginning of the article, and this desire in the Catholic Church for “peace” and “cooperation” with other religions?  How can any group enjoy peace while having anathemas hanging over their heads?  How can all these different religions cooperate if they don’t even believe in these teachings?

Catholics will sometimes tell us that all these anathemas were canceled in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  So, does this mean that there are no more anathemas?  You mean to tell me that these anathemas were all just a big mistake, after all?  Do they not count today?  If this is the case, this change in policy is little comfort for those profoundly affected by these anathemas in the past.  What about those who refused to comply and ended up persecuted or killed?  Would an apology hundreds of years later help them?  Because of this “change” in 1983, are those who perished because of these anathemas now released from Hell? 

The Catholic Church likes to brag that it has not changed its doctrine for 2000 years.  But if these “infallibly pronounced” anathemas are wrong or somehow unacceptable now, they must have also been wrong back then!  So much for an “infallible” church.  I pray that Catholics will see and understand this deception.

Conclusion

The Catholic Church has been flinging anathemas for a long time now.  If they really are considered to be in force today by the Church, it is irrelevant because many, if not most, of the Council of Trent’s anathemas were not even biblical to start with, therefore, were never binding.  If they are considered to be no longer in force today, then the Catholic Church’s supposed “infallibility” has been exposed as fraudulent.  Either way, she has a problem.

Worst of all, it is ironic that the Catholic Church anathematizes HERSELF by preaching a false gospel, according to Galatians 1:8-9.