January 1 is a Holy Day of Obligation

Just a reminder that the New Year's Day (Octave of Christmas and Feast of the Holy Mother of God) is a Holy Day of Obligation binding on all Catholics.

Formerly January 1st was the "Circumcision of our Lord" but this was changed by His Holiness John XXIII. I sort of it like the old title since Christ would have been circumcised on the eighth day after his nativity--January 1 is the eighth day after Christmas. Nevertheless, the Gospel lesson tells of the Circumcision. Mystically speaking, the circumcision of Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Law and the "down payment" of His passion and death.

Click here for an explanation of Catholic Holy Days of Obligation: Holy Days of Obligation (Explained).

Why did Christ's resurrected body have scars?

A friend of mine recently asked a great question: Why does Jesus still have the wounds from the cross? He has his perfected body, why keep the wounds? Will martyrs keep their wounds they received in Christ's name upon the resurrection of the dead and the final glorification?

Saint Thomas Aquinas answered this question in Summa theologiae IIIa q. 54, a. 4: "Whether Christ's body ought to have risen with its scars?" He gives five reasons for why Christ rose with the scars of His passion:

I answer that, It was fitting for Christ's soul at His Resurrection to resume the body with its scars. In the first place, for Christ's own glory. For Bede says on Luke 24:40 that He kept His scars not from inability to heal them, "but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of His victory."Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii): "Perhaps in that kingdom we shall see on the bodies of the Martyrs the traces of the wounds which they bore for Christ's name: because it will not be a deformity, but a dignity in them; and a certain kind of beauty will shine in them, in the body, though not of the body."

Secondly, to confirm the hearts of the disciples as to "the faith in His Resurrection" (Bede, on Luke 24:40).

Thirdly, "that when He pleads for us with the Father, He may always show the manner of death He endured for us" (Bede, on Luke 24:40).

Fourthly, "that He may convince those redeemed in His blood, how mercifully they have been helped, as He exposes before them the traces of the same death" (Bede, on Luke 24:40).

Lastly, "that in the Judgment-day He may upbraid them with their just condemnation" (Bede, on Luke 24:40). Hence, as Augustine says (De Symb. ii): "Christ knew why He kept the scars in His body. For, as He showed them to Thomas who would not believe except he handled and saw them, so will He show His wounds to His enemies, so that He who is the Truth may convict them, saying: 'Behold the man whom you crucified; see the wounds you inflicted; recognize the side you pierced, since it was opened by you and for you, yet you would not enter.'"

The Pope who smoked - Benedict XIII

I recently came across a rather humorous anecdote from Catholic history: the smoking pope Benedict XIII of blessed memory. Reminds me of the fidgety cardinal in Godfather III, the one always trying to make bank deals regarding "Immobilare".

Way back in 1624, Pope Urban VIII spoke out against the evils of tobacco and threatened excommunication for anyone who smoked or snuffed in consecrated spaces (i.e. churches, shrines, convents). Pope Innocent X followed up with an anti-smoking bull in 1650.

And then there was Benedict XIII. He put Innocent X's bull in his pipe and smoked it. Not literally, but he reversed the decision in 1725. I once heard a rumor that this pope used tobacco while he celebrated the Holy Mass, but I'm going to chalk that up as an apocryphal legend.

In 1863 Pope Bl. Pius IX of blessed memory built a cigar factory in Rome facing Mastai's Square bearing this inscription:

PIUS IX OFFICINAM
NICOTIANIS FOLIIS ELABORANDIS
A SOLO EXTRUXIT
ANNO MDCCCLXIII

Translated, this reads:

Pius IX built this workshop
for the processing of nicotine leaves
from the ground up
in the year 1863

Pope John Paul II of blessed memory snuffed out this tradition when he banned all tobacco smoking on Vatican property on July 1, 2002. The only smoke allowed at St Peter's is that wafting from the thuribles.

Catholic Philosophy and the Preambles of Faith

The Catholic Church has always esteemed the role of philosophy as the handmaiden of theology. This because the Church believes that grace perfects nature. The supernatural perfects the natural. The Protestant sometimes misunderstands the Catholic and assumes that the Catholic believes that reason (or human power) is sufficiently able to grasp the articles of the Faith. This is not quite correct. The polemical apologetics of Cornelius Van Til come to mind.

The Catholic holds that the articles of Faith (i.e. the Creed) are divinely revealed and only received by grace. However, there are certain premises that are known either in themselves or can be known by philosophic investigation. These premises can be known by the pagan. Saint Thomas Aquinas explains:

The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

Summa theologiae Ia, q. 2, a. 2, ad 1.

Saint Thomas Aquinas calls our natural knowledge of things the "preambles of faith" or the "presuppositions of faith" (cf. III Sent. d. 24, a. 3, sol. 1). The preambles or presuppositions of faith include the premises that God exists, that God is one, incorporeal, and intelligent. None of these facts pertain to the Gospel and they are not articles of the Faith per se (i.e. the dogmas of Scripture and the Creed). Note well that knowledge of these facts does not necessarily entail salvation. Salvation is attained by calling upon the name of Christ and in believing the entire Christian Faith. However, the Christian Faith also assumes all of the preambles of the Faith because the Creed assumes that God exists, that God is one, etc.

Consequently, the Catholic does not hold that mere philosophic knowledge is sufficient for salvation. Philosophy merely establishes the bare-bones presuppositions of the believer's saving faith in the Gospel. Catholics also recognize that most people do not come to believe in a Creator because they happened across the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Your pew lady already assumes everything the greatest philosophers achieved by virtue of her believing the tenets of the Christian Faith.

This leads us to an obvious question: If faith supplies all the basic concepts that reason can attain through philosophy, then what is the use of philosophy?

I believe that many Protestants (and even some Catholics) are afraid of philosophy because it seems to assume that faith is unnecessary or that there is "another track" to heaven through speculation. Rightly understood, however, philosophy does not compete with theology but confirms it. This brings us back to the purpose and role of philosophy. Since grace never destroys or contradicts nature, so also faith never contradicts reason. This truth assumes that the Christian Faith will always be whole and coherent.

The Christian does not fear reason, but he embraces it. As my professor Fr. James Lehrberger O. Cist. is fond of saying, faith does not fear the "acid bath of reason" because we know that faith will always emerged unscathed. Reason is not able to grasp naturally the divine truths of our Faith (e.g. the Trinity or hypostatic union of Christ's nature), but once we come to hold these truths by faith, we discover that reason certainly does not contradict these truths. As St Anselm said: Credo ut intelligam. "I believe so that I may understand."

Merry Shakespearean Christmas

A Happy and Holy Christmas to all of you from the Marshall Family!

Some say that ever 'gainst that season comes
Wherein our Saviour's birth is celebrated,
The bird of dawning singeth all night long:
And then, they say, no spirit dare stir abroad;
The nights are wholesome; then no planets strike,
No fairy takes, nor witch hath power to charm,
So hallowed and so gracious is the time.

From William Shakespeare's Hamlet 1, 1.

Mary's Painless Delivery of Christ

Is it official Catholic tradition that our Blessed Mother did not experience birth pains when giving birth to Christ our Savior? The Church Fathers explicitly teach that she did not experience pain in giving birth to the Son of God. They cite Isaiah 66:7 for proof:

"Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child."

Quoting St. Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas also teaches that Mary suffered no pain in giving birth to Christ saying:

On the contrary, Augustine says (Serm. de Nativ. {Supposititious}), addressing himself to the Virgin-Mother: "In conceiving thou wast all pure, in giving birth thou wast without pain."

I answer that, The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. Now it has been said above (28, 2, Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man "was born into the world," according to Is. 35:1,2: "Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise." (Summa theologiae III. 35. 6)

Your thoughts?

You may also like:

• If Mary Had No Sin, Is Christ Her Savior?

The Hokey Pokey is Anti-Catholic!

I can't believe it. The Hokey Pokey is anti-Catholic! It was devised by Puritans to mock the priest's seemingly strange movements at the Holy Mass and the words of consecration: Hoc est enim corpus meum.

Story by Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent Telegraph UK:

A spokesman for the leader of the church in Scotland said the song had disturbing origins.

Critics claim that Puritans composed the song in the 18th century in an attempt to mock the actions and language of priests leading the Latin mass.

Now politicians have urged police to arrest anyone using the song to "taunt" Catholics under legislation designed to prevent incitement to religious hatred.

Peter Kearney, a spokesman for Cardinal Keith O'Brien, said:

"This song does have quite disturbing origins. Although apparently innocuous, it was devised as an attack on and a parody of the Catholic mass.

"If there are moves to restore its more malevolent meaning then consideration should perhaps be given to its wider use."

According to the church, the song's title derives from the words "hocus pocus".

The phrase is said to be a Puritan parody of the Latin "hoc est enim corpus meum" or "this is my body" used by Catholic priests to accompany the transubstantiation during mass.

Original story from the Telegraph UK.

Hat tip to Walker Dollahon.

Enoch and Elijah as the Two Witnesses of the Book of Revelation

In the eleventh chapter of the Apocalypse we read:

[1] Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told: "Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there,
[2] but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months.
[3] And I will grant my two witnesses power to prophesy for one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth."
[4] These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands which stand before the Lord of the earth.
[5] And if any one would harm them, fire pours out from their mouth and consumes their foes; if any one would harm them, thus he is doomed to be killed.
[6] They have power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they desire.
[7] And when they have finished their testimony, the beast that ascends from the bottomless pit will make war upon them and conquer them and kill them,
[8] and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.
[9] For three days and a half men from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb,
[10] and those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and make merry and exchange presents, because these two prophets had been a torment to those who dwell on the earth.
[11] But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.
[12] Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, "Come up hither!" And in the sight of their foes they went up to heaven in a cloud.

Many have sought to identify the two witnesses. Some say Moses and Elijah and some Preterists state that these two witnesses represent all the prophets and John the Baptist (e.g. Chilton). However, the Church Fathers identified them as "Henoch and Elias" or "Enoch and Elijah" (Augustine). The reason for this is that Enoch and Elijah are the two Old Testament saints who were assumed into Heaven prior to death. Neither of them died. Their future death will be a martyrdom under the hand of the eschatological Antichrist.

This fact is confirmed by Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa theologiae:

Reply to Objection 2. Elias was taken up into the atmospheric heaven, but not in to the empyrean heaven, which is the abode of the saints: and likewise Enoch was translated into the earthly paradise, where he is believed to live with Elias until the coming of Antichrist. (Summa theologiae III, q. 49, a. 5)

Saint Thomas teaches that these two men are not in empyrean heaven (i.e. the supernatural realm) but are in the atmospheric heaven (outer space?). Whatever the situation, they are waiting for their encounter with the Antichrist. At least that's what Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas teach--and it's difficult to argue with them.

Take my Apologetics Final Exam

Below is my end of the semester Apologetics Final. Here were the top scores from the students: 99%, 98%, 98%, 95%.

J.M.J.
Apologetics Fall Final

Name:

Date:

Vocabulary (28 points)

On a separate sheet of paper, define the following terms:

1. Adoptionism
2. Agnostic
3. Apologetics
4. Apostle
5. Atheist
6. Cosmological argument
7. Darwinism (be sure to discuss natural selection)
8. Divine Revelation
9. Ebionites
10. Gnosticism
11. Hierarchy
12. Image of God
13. Judaizers
14. Magisterium
15. Mandeans
16. Materialism
17. Messiah
18. Monogenism
19. Pantheism
20. Papal infallibility
21. Papal supremacy
22. Private revelation
23. Septuagint
24. sola scriptura
25. Subordinationism
26. Synoptic Gospels
27. Teleological argument
28. Three-fold office of Christ


People (10 points)
Describe the significance of the people below:

1. Montanus
2. Tertullian
3. Mani
4. Saint Cyprian
5. Kerinthos
6. Saint Justin Martyr
7. Josephus
8. Novatian
9. Sabellius
10. Blaise Paschal


Basic Catholic Knowledge
Choose one of the two options: (25 points)

Option 1
o List Seven Sacraments
o List Seven Virtues
o List Seven Deadly Sins
o List Four Wounds of the Fall of Adam and Eve

Option 2
o List Old Testament books in order
o List New Testament books in order

Short Answer Questions (12 points)
Answer each question with with one to three sentences.

1. What two powers do humans possess that animals do not possess?
2. How is Public Revelation different from Private Revelation?
3. What is the "Synoptic Problem" and how to liberal rationalists account for it?
4. Account for why each of the four Evangelists are trustworthy? Where did each of the four gain their information about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ?
5. Who is the first human to acknowledge that Christ is both the Messiah and Son of God (provide the biblical verse for support).
6. Liberal rationalists who deny the miraculous resurrection of Christ provide one of two theories. Briefly explain both theories.
7. In what two ways did Christ justify his claims?
8. What are the three Holy Orders?
9. What two characteristics distinguish the Pope from all other bishops?
10. Why is the Pope also the Bishop of Rome?
11. What message was preached by both Saint John the Baptist and our Lord Jesus Christ?
12. How does God validate his Divine Revelations throughout history?

Essay on Gnosticism and Catholicism (25 points)

Write a two page essay about the philosophical presuppositions of Gnosticism and how they differ from the tenets of the Catholic Faith. Please include examples of how some Catholic Christians have inadvertently subscribed to Gnostic ideas? Include a discussion about the significance of the Incarnation of Christ, the Resurrection of Christ, and the sanctity of Holy Matrimony.


Bonus (one point each)

1. What does Saint Paul say about the cosmological argument (provide the verse).
2. Who were the first five Popes?
3. Who were the last five Popes (including the current Pope)?
4. Write out the five luminous mysteries.
5. What are the four Marian dogmas?

Scipio as the Voice of Cicero in De re publica

Marcus Tullius Cicero presents true philosophy as active philosophy. This Ciceronian thesis stands in contrast to the Greek philosophical tradition that holds that the true philosopher recoils from the political life altogether or that the philosopher only enters public life when forcibly compelled. Cicero established a new foundation for the Western philosophical by incorporating the active life as a necessary result of the contemplative life. Far from making Cicero less philosophical, his perspective reformulates the definition of what it means to be a “lover of wisdom”. Cicero’s literary composition of a philosophical dialogue featuring Scipio Aemilianus Africanus substantiates his claim that true philosophy requires attention to civic duties.

Scipio Aemilianus Africanus (195–129 BC) received his noteworthy cognomen of Africanus for his famous capture and destruction of Rome’s nemesis Carthage in 146 BC. The Romans also remembered Scipio as a hero for his mediatory role in the revolts surrounding the Grachi reforms and assassinations. Consequently, the Roman Scipio stands out as a public servant par excellence. If one were to compare Scipio to the modern American landscape, he would embody the combined legacies of a General Patton, Martin Luther King Jr. and a John F. Kennedy. Given Cicero’s intention for making a case for the active life of philosophy, he wisely chose Scipio as a worthy representative.

Cicero’s Scipio begins with a critique of Panaetius (I, 15), which indicates that Scipio is in fact the voice of Cicero. One might recall that Cicero begins De officiis with a commendation of Panaetius’ thought followed by a critique of how Panaetius did not go far enough. In his De re publica, Cicero also molds Scipio into his own image by describing Scipio as being philosophic even in the midst of public service (I, 17). Moreover, Scipio demonstrates that philosophic knowledge is complimentary with leadership, as in the case of instructing soldiers about the scientific phenomenon of eclipses (I, 23). In De officiis, Cicero himself openly praises Gaius Sulpicius for doing the same thing in astronomy.

Scipio also stresses the role of man’s inclination toward social behavior as relating to his power of deliberation. As Cicero states in De officiis, this social behavior is natural to human nature, just as it is natural for bees to be gregarious. In De re publica, Cicero’s Scipio confirms that this inclination in humanity comes from the optimal part of the mind, that is, consilii scilicet. (I, 60). Thus, Scipio’s argument seems to perfectly track that of Cicero in De officiis.

There is one puzzling exception to Scipio’s presentation as an “civic philosopher” in Book I of De re publica. Section 26 of Book I presents Scipio as casting scorn on human affairs in contrast to the glories of contemplative philosophy. This appears to contradict to the purposes of Cicero and the subsequent arguments of Scipio. Perhaps, Cicero (through the mouth Scipio) wishes to establish philosophical contemplation per se as the highest human endeavor because it allows the public official to execute his duties with a certain detachment. As Thomas Aquinas would later teach, the contemplative life is higher than the active life, but the contemplative life combined with the active life is higher still.

In summary, Cicero has successfully presented the philosophical life through the mouth of one of Rome’s greatest public servants: Scipio Aemilianus Africanus. Scipio is active. Scipio is contemplative. Most of all, he is thoroughly Roman. By choosing Scipio, Cicero justifies his own philosophico-political career without drawing attention to himself during the dangerous years of the demise of the Roman Republic.

Could Adam and Eve fly through the air? Preternatural gifts and Supernatural gift

I was recently teaching a class on the preternatural gifts and the supernatural gift of grace when one student asked, "I heard a priest once say that Adam and Eve could fly before they sinned. Is that true?"

Interesting idea, but it doesn't have any basis in Scripture or Tradition. Adam and Eve were endowed with special gifts, but I doubt that flying was one of them.

Adam was constituted in a state of grace. This is a supernatural gift. It is super natura ("over nature") because it elevated man to the dignity of communing with God. This ability is absolutely and infinitely beyond any creatures capacity and consequently this gift of grace was supernatural or absolutely beyond human nature.

Man was also given other gifts that were not absolutely beyond his nature, but relatively beyond his nature. In other words, these gifts perfected Adam, but were not entirely beyond his nature (i.e. somewhere between natural human and angel). These gifts are called preternatural gifts from praeter natura ("beyond nature"). They are usually numbered as three: infused knowledge, immortality, and integrity of passions.

The one supernatural gift and the three preternatural gifts bring the number to four and correspond with the Venerable Bede's (and Thomas Aquinas') "Four Wounds of the Fall" since the loss of those four gifts resulted in four wounds:

1. Original Sin (lack of sanctifying grace, and thus righteousness)
2. Ignorance (lack of knowledge)
3. Concupiscence (passions no longer integrated under reason)
4. Mortality and sickness (the body no longer strengthened)

Moreover, these four gifts and their corresponding four wounds pertain to the four powers of the soul:

1. Intellect (corresponding to the cardinal virtue of prudence)
   
2. Will (corresponding to the cardinal virtue of justice)
3. Concupiscible Appetite (corresponding to the cardinal virtue of temperance)
4. Irascible Appetite (corresponding to the cardinal virtue of fortitude)
   

We therefore see that the four gifts were gifts pertaining to morality. They were not superpowers (like flying through the air or x-ray vision). However, Christ ascended into Heaven, so maybe there's a chance!

I'll be posting again soon

Posting has been light lately. I've been writing papers. I'll be back in the saddle this week.

Taylor

Greco-Roman Theologian: Leo Allatius (1586-1669)

I recently learned about a very important (an unknown) Greek theologian. His name is Leo Allatius. He was born in 1586 and died in 1669. He graduated from the College of Saint Athanasius in Rome where he later taught Greek and theology. Allatius is remembered for providing the theological justification for the preservation of rites and traditions of the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.

Allatius's knowledge in these matters established him as an "ecumenical theologian" between the Eastern and Western Churches. Allatius stressed that Greek dogma was identical to Roman dogma and that the schism was merely juridical. He defended this 1648 thesis in his De Ecclesiae occidentalis atque orientalis perpetua consensione ("The Western and Eastern Churches in perpetual Agreement"). Such notions led to the final stipulations that the Eastern Churches were not to be merged with the Catholic Church but would retain their own hierarchical independence and traditional rituals.

Three years later in 1651 Allatius published his edition of the works of George Acropolites. George Acropolites had served as the Byzantine Emperor's ambassador in the 13th century. George was notable because he had been a defender of the Pope's juridical supremacy over the Eastern Churches. These works were obviously a treasure chest for Eastern Catholic apologetics.

Two "fun facts" about Leo Allatius. He was a fan of the opera and catalogued all known operatic dramas. Music historians are therefore very grateful to him. He was also a physician and wrote about the pheneomenon of vampires. Go figure.

In memory of Avery Cardinal Dulles

Avery Cardinal Dulles has passed away. Requiescat in pace.

A couple of years ago, I had the chance to meet him. I asked him a question about "the privileged place of Anglicanism" in the documents of Vatican II, and he was quick to remind me that the Orthodoxy held that place and the Lutherans were quickly replacing Anglicans as the most "Catholic" Protestants.

He was sharp.

The Erosion of Natural Law

J. Budziszewski has good article in this month's First Things entitled "Natural Law Revealed." Here's the pithy conclusion:

Under the influence of the Enlightenment, natural-law thinkers scrubbed, little by little, whatever influence remained from the centuries of faith--whatever benefit they might have gained from the help of revelation. And, as a result, they lost the idea of nature, then the idea of law, and finally the idea of thinking. In the end, they found that they had scoured away the ground on which they were standing.

Patriarch of Moscow Dies, Pope Laments

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 5, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI has sent a message of condolence to the Russian Orthodox Church upon hearing of the death of Patriarch Alexy II, calling him "courageous" in his efforts to promote Gospel values.

The Pope stated in the note that he "was profoundly saddened" to hear of the patriarch's death, and that he wished to convey his "most sincere condolences" and to assure the faithful of his "spiritual closeness at this very sad time."

Alexy II, 79, who had been the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church since 1990, died today at his residence near Moscow. No cause of death was given.

Full story from Zenit.

[Taylor: Let us pray for the repose of his soul. Aleksy II was a great voice in the pro-life cause and kept Orthodox attentive to the sin of contraception. May he rest and peace and may angels guide him to Father.]

The Baianist Heresy as it relates to Nature and Grace

There is an interesting heresy that occurred during the time of the Reformation by the name of Baianism--named after the theologian Michael Baius.

Michael Baius presented the history of humanity with the terms: (1) the state of innocent nature; (2) the state of fallen nature; and (3) the state of redeemed nature. Notice how Baius refers to these states as various "natures". Herein lies the error.

Baianism is a strange blend of confusion. Baius is Pelagian with respect to (1) the state of innocent nature; Baius is Calvinist with respect to (2) the state of fallen nature; and Baius is Lutheran with respect to (3) the state of redeemed nature.

(1) Baius on the state of innocent nature
Baius conflated nature and grace in the original man so that in Adam sanctifying grace and the preternatural gifts (immortality, infused knowledge, and integrity of passions) were natural and not gifts. In other words, Baius thought that man was naturally immortal and naturally destined for the beatific vision of Heaven.

Consequently, Baius' doctrine is a Pelagian understanding of pre-fallen man - Baius taught that Adam was essentially graceless prior to the fall.

(2) Baius on the state of fallen nature
As a result of Baius identifying grace and the preternatural gifts with "human nature", men must necessarily fall from human nature.

In Catholic soteriology, man falls from grace and the three preternatural gifts (immortality, infused knowledge, and integrity of passions). Since Baius imagined pre-fallen Adam as naturally possessing these attributes, Adam fell from his own human nature. Adam possessed a depraved nature or a sinful nature. It is state of total depravity.

(3) Baius on the state of redeemed nature
Baius comes close to Luther in this aspect because justification is merely a fictio iuris ("legal fiction"). Since mankind possesses a depraved nature and is not fully restored to the pre-fallen state of innocence in this life, it is therefore impossible for an interior renovation to occu within a believer's soul.

Baius believed that his doctrine would attract the Protestant "heretics" and that his theology was more faithful to Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers. He is right that his doctrine of salvation does come close to Luther and Calvin's "justification by imputed righteousness". Nevertheless, Pope Pius V condemned seventy-nine propositions from the works of Baius as heretical in his 1567 bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus.

All this is to show that one's doctrine of salvation is intimately bound to how one understands grace, nature, and the state of mankind prior to the fall.