Aimee Milburn has a nice post examining Francis Beckwith’s interview with Tim Drake in Catholic World Report.

There you have it.  Catholicism does not teach “works righteousness.”  And Beckwith is correct.  But the Catholic teaching is not the same as the Protestant; it is an entire paradigm shift to understand it.  Salvation is not just about a one-time event so we can go to heaven; it’s about being perfected in God, becoming the image of God, for eternity.  That is the work of God in us, forming and perfecting His image in us by His infused grace, which we receive the more pliant we are in His hands, and takes time.

Then I read the Council of Trent, which some Protestant friends had suggested I do. What I found was shocking. I found a document that had been nearly universally misrepresented by many Protestants, including some friends. I do not believe, however, that the misrepresentation is the result of purposeful deception. But rather, it is the result of reading Trent with Protestant assumptions and without a charitable disposition. For example, Trent talks about the four causes of justification, which correspond somewhat to Aristotle’s four causes. None of these causes is the work of the individual Christian. For, according to Trent, God’s grace does all the work.  However, Trent does condemn “faith alone,” but what it means is mere intellectual assent without allowing God’s grace to be manifested in one’s actions and communion with the Church. This is why Trent also condemns justification by works. 

Well, all I can say here is, me too.  I read Trent on my way into the Church too, and was amazed – by its beauty, and its consistency with scripture.  And yes, Trent condemns both mere intellectual assent and justification by works.  We have to be changed, by God, by giving ourselves wholly to Him, so we become His work, the work of His hands, in us.

. . . I returned again to the Fathers and found in them, very early on, the Real Presence, infant baptism, and apostolic succession as well as other “Catholic” doctrines. Even in the cases where these doctrines were not articulated in their contemporary formulations, their primitive versions were surely there. But what was shocking to me is that one never finds in the Fathers claims that these doctrines are “unbiblical” or “apostate” or “not Christian,” as one finds in contemporary anti-Catholic fundamentalist literature. So, at worst, I thought, the Catholic doctrines were considered legitimate options early on in Church history by the men who were discipled by the Apostles and/or the Apostles’ disciples.  At best, the Catholic doctrines are part of the deposit of faith passed on to the successors of the Apostles and preserved by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. 

And again, me too.  And look where it led me.  And Beckwith.  And so many others.  We do it individually, and for each of us it is such a discovery, life-changing, eye-opening.  And then we meet others who’ve made the same journey.  “What – you, too?  My goodness!”

Oh, and although I linked to it ages ago and have it on my blogroll, if you’ve not yet seen it, do check out the Catholic converts blog – a spot where 68 (and growing)  convert/revert blogs are listed, each sharing wonderful, inspiring stories.

Long-time blogger Hokie Pundit has decided to move in the Catholic direction as well, and has three blog posts about it on his new blog (switched because he’s no longer a Hokie, but at William and Mary law school.)

Faith-related, in case you missed it last week, Edward Oakes, SJ on faith and doubt, comparing and contrasting Newman and Ratzinger on that score, and folding into one of the best treatments of the Mother Teresa story that I’ve seen over the past month.