“The Greatest of All Protestant Heresies”?

Let us begin with a church history exam question. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) was a figure not to be taken lightly. He was Pope Clement VIII’s personal theologian and one of the most able figures in the Counter-Reformation movement within sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism. On one occasion, he wrote: “The greatest of all Protestant heresies is _______ .” Complete, explain, and discuss Bellarmine’s statement.

How would you answer? What is the greatest of all Protestant heresies? Perhaps justification by faith? Perhaps Scripture alone, or one of the other Reformation watchwords?

Those answers make logical sense. But none of them completes Bellarmine’s sentence. What he wrote was: “The greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance.”

A moment’s reflection explains why. If justification is not by faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone — if faith needs to be completed by works; if Christ’s work is somehow repeated; if grace is not free and sovereign, then something always needs to be done, to be “added” for final justification to be ours. That is exactly the problem. If final justification is dependent on something we have to complete it is not possible to enjoy assurance of salvation. For then, theologically, final justification is contingent and uncertain, and it is impossible for anyone (apart from special revelation, Rome conceded) to be sure of salvation. But if Christ has done everything, if justification is by grace, without contributory works; it is received by faith’s empty hands — then assurance, even “full assurance” is possible for every believer.

No wonder Bellarmine thought full, free, unfettered grace was dangerous! No wonder the Reformers loved the letter to the Hebrews!

This is why, as the author of Hebrews pauses for breath at the climax of his exposition of Christ’s work (Heb. 10:18), he continues his argument with a Paul-like “therefore” (Heb. 10:19). He then urges us to “draw near … in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:22). We do not need to re-read the whole letter to see the logical power of his “therefore.” Christ is our High Priest; our hearts have been sprinkled clean from an evil conscience just as our bodies have been washed with pure water (v.22).

Christ has once-for-all become the sacrifice for our sins, and has been raised and vindicated in the power of an indestructible life as our representative priest. By faith in Him, we are as righteous before the throne of God as He is righteous. For we are justified in His righteousness, His justification alone is ours! And we can no more lose this justification than He can fall from heaven. Thus our justification does not need to be completed any more than does Christ’s!

With this in view, the author says, “by one offering He has perfected for all time those who come to God by him” (Heb. 10:14). The reason we can stand before God in full assurance is because we now experience our “hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and … bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22).

“Ah,” retorted Cardinal Bellarmine’s Rome, “teach this and those who believe it will live in license and antinomianism.” But listen instead to the logic of Hebrews. Enjoying this assurance leads to four things: First, an unwavering faithfulness to our confession of faith in Jesus Christ alone as our hope (v.23); second, a careful consideration of how we can encourage each other to “love and good works” (v.24); third, an ongoing communion with other Christians in worship and every aspect of our fellowship (v.25a); fourth, a life in which we exhort one another to keep looking to Christ and to be faithful to him, as the time of his return draws ever nearer (25b).

It is the good tree that produces good fruit, not the other way round. We are not saved by works; we are saved for works. In fact we are God’s workmanship at work (Eph. 2:9–10)! Thus, rather than lead to a life of moral and spiritual indifference, the once-for-all work of Jesus Christ and the full-assurance faith it produces, provides believers with the most powerful impetus to live for God’s glory and pleasure. Furthermore, this full assurance is rooted in the fact that God Himself has done all this for us. He has revealed His heart to us in Christ. The Father does not require the death of Christ to persuade Him to love us. Christ died because the Father loves us (John 3:16). He does not lurk behind His Son with sinister intent wishing He could do us ill — were it not for the sacrifice his Son had made! No, a thousand times no! — the Father Himself loves us in the love of the Son and the love of the Spirit.

Those who enjoy such assurance do not go to the saints or to Mary. Those who look only to Jesus need look nowhere else. In Him we enjoy full assurance of salvation. The greatest of all heresies? If heresy, let me enjoy this most blessed of “heresies”! For it is God’s own truth and grace!

Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to that of the dogmatic definitions of a pope or ecumenical council?

Gotta keep your words straight..
dogmatic is not = to infallible

Yes it contains the handful of "infallible" proclamations of the magisterium /pope, yes it also contains the teachings of the Vatican council .... but probably 95% has never been declared infallible teaching ...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, as published in 1997, is only infallible where it states the truths of the faith that have been previously defined in Ecumenical Councils or infallible decrees of the Roman Pontiff.
The same goes with the previous Catechism of the Council of Trent that we all used to know by question and answer, like the Baltimore Catechism. Only items in there that were previously defined in an ecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff are "infallible".
We can find items in the new Catechism that pertain to practice, worship and other things that many do not adhere to, namely those who worship according to the 1962 Missal and have all Sacraments according to the 1962 Missal and pre Vatican II Rituale Romanum, under the "Extraordinary Rite" [currently Ecclesia Dei Afflicta Indult].

weren't you the one touting the benefits of an advanced degree since it taught a person how to evaluate and think critically, or is that only advanced degrees that come from from prot institutions?

"Touting" it? Only in the sense that when some people contend "Protestants" are ignorant and don't care about learning the truth other than their own echo chambers they are being hypocritical and are ill informed. Does someone NEED advanced degrees to know Christ and be able to understand and teach others the faith once delivered unto the saints? Obviously not. In your vast pursuit of wisdom and knowledge have you ventured outside of cath institutions or cath writings? Do you imagine you have an objective grasp of the facts and can present a well-reasoned defense of your faith? Do you know WHY you believe what you do?

Sounds like someone has has been partaking in the kool-aid. How about picking one story and sticking to it.

I never liked the taste of kool-aid. How about remembering the context of others comments instead of snippet hunting with which to build a convenient insult?

terycarlis correct that the Catechism is not an infallible document, it is indeed the opinion of men and can be changed as they wish to "massage ' their doctrine .

This is not what Rome holds, as the CCC can teach that which has been infallibly (imaginatively) defined, while non-infallible teachings of the OM (Ordinary Magisterium) are understood to require submission of mind and will.

With respect to the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church, these should be received with religious submission of mind and will.” - JP2: http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1988/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19881015_usa-ad-limina.html

"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." - Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, 25

Of course, this RC means to unity is interpretive, as there is disagreement on the character of church teachings, including just what the pope's "manifest mind and will" is, as in what magisterial level such fall under, with some theologians holding there are 3 or 4 levels, and thus what level of assent is required.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a presentation of Church doctrine that has previously been taught with varying degrees of authority. To determine the degree of authority with which any given doctrine has been taught, one must investigate the history of that particular teaching. Look to the Catechism’s footnotes for help in this regard. There you will find references to Church councils, documents, canon law, Scripture, etc., all of varying degrees of authority. - http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/how-much-authority-does-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church-carry

Pope John Paul II called the Catechism "a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine" ( (Fidei Depositum 3) and "a sure norm for teaching the faith."

In Casti Connubii (1930), Pope Pius XI appears to infallibly teaches that non-procreative sexual acts are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful, but which i see few RCs affirming as one of the exercises of papal infallibility.

But the fact that the version that would be in current use would have been approved by the pope and the magisterium would place it in the category of not having anything in it that is opposition to rome teaching .It would hold the imprimatur .

While some RCs still invoke the imprimatur as giving assurance of fidelity, many others regard assurance based on it as rather dubious.

See post here on Keenan's Catechism,' a book published with the imprimatur of Scotch Roman Catholic bishops, and recommended also by Irish prelates. This book contained the following question and answer:—

'Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?

'A. This is a Protestant intention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.'

About 1869 or 1870 I had a visit from an English clergyman, who,.. bought some copies of the book to present to his friends abroad. A couple of years later he visited Ireland again, and purchased some more copies of 'Keenan'; but this question and answer had then disappeared. - From George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.