1. Pet. 2:24

[MarcoPolo]

If grace is not by works as the RCC teaches, then what amends can be made or even should be made? NONE.

Consider this in light of the Pope’s comments you cited.

We are encouraged to do works for atonment:

Matthew 6:3-4
But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

cf. CCC #1434
The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving…

See also
1 Peter 4:8
Above all, let your love for one another be intense, because love covers a multitude of sins.

James 5:20
he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

I could go on and on…
And be assured that the Church teaches that it is not the works themselves that make atonement.

See CCC #1430
Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart,* interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false.*** This is in line with the Romans verses you cited. Hope that helps!

 

[unacanta]

Consider this in light of the Pope’s comments you cited.

We are encouraged to do works for atonment:

Matthew 6:3-4
But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

cf. CCC #1434
The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving…

See also
1 Peter 4:8
Above all, let your love for one another be intense, because love covers a multitude of sins.

James 5:20
he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

I could go on and on…
And be assured that the Church teaches that it is not the works themselves that make atonement.

See CCC #1430
Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart,** interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false.** This is in line with the Romans verses you cited. Hope that helps!

Thank you for your response, it is always helpful to hear a person expressing their fatih. I am not sure how the scriptures you cited actually relate to grace.

For expample:
Matthew 6:3-4
But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

This in no way has anything to do with the grace our Father has given us. Scripture is simply teaching we should not look to the world for praise for giving alms but rather our Father knows our heart. Our alms should not be given out of penance but rather the abundance of life Christ has offered.

cf. CCC #1434
The interior penance of the Christian can be expressed in many and various ways. Scripture and the Fathers insist above all on three forms, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving…

This teaching dictates Scripture and the Father insist on penace, which is contrary to Paul’s teaching through scripture on grace in Romans.

1 Peter 4:8
Above all, let your love for one another be intense, because love covers a multitude of sins.

James 5:20
he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

Upon viewing both of these scriptures it is quite obvious that the love of Christ compels us preach the “Good News” which is the grace extended all sinners through Christ our Lord. They have no root what so ever in the doctrine of Indulgences.

Indulgences as taught by the RCC is a work based theology where the sinner makes amends for their sin and not relying on the the completed works of Christ on the cross. This again is completely contrary to the message brought to us by Paul in Romans.

I am sorry, but I don’t see the relationship between the scriptures you have given and the penance do for our sins. I do however completely see the teaching of the Church in the CCC passages you listed. I naturally feel they are contrary to the grace offered to sinners by grace.

Blessings and thanks for responding.

Len

 

[MarcoPolo]

Upon viewing both of these scriptures it is quite obvious that the love of Christ compels us preach the “Good News” which is the grace extended all sinners through Christ our Lord. They have no root what so ever in the doctrine of Indulgences.

Well what can be said other than the Scriptures I cited do support penance. As well, why would indulgences deny the completed work of Christ on the Cross, but not your view that we also have to preach the Good News? (which incidentally Catholics teach too). If not for the Cross, indulgences would merit nothing. So how do Catholics deny the work of the Cross?

This again is completely contrary to the message brought to us by Paul in Romans.

Perhaps seemingly, but then you would have to say Peter and James do not rely on the Cross and are also contrary to Paul in Romans!

 

[unacanta]

Well what can be said other than the Scriptures I cited do support penance. As well, why would indulgences deny the completed work of Christ on the Cross, but not your view that we also have to preach the Good News? (which incidentally Catholics teach too). If not for the Cross, indulgences would merit nothing. So how do Catholics deny the work of the Cross?

A.) Please explain how those particular scriptures you sited support penance.

B.) Indulgences deny the completed work of Christ as follows:

I am quoting from the 1st chapter, second paragraph.
vatican.va/holy_father/pa…ctrina_en.html

1. It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God’s sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death,(3) or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or “purifying” punishments.(4) Therefore it has always been the conviction of the faithful that the paths of evil are fraught with many stumbling blocks and bring adversities, bitterness and harm to those who follow them.(5)
2. Romans 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
   Why if we are justified freely by His grace and have redemption through Christ do we need to have sins expiated by any means other than His death on the cross.? The justification means we are in correct legal standing before the throne of God. Paul teaches here we are redeemed by Christ, in other words He has paid the ransom price necessary for our legal justification.

2.Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

You must agree with me that it us in whom the following is refering:

"These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death,(3) or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or “purifying” punishments.

If it is by our works in which the sins are expiated then as Paul teaches “grace is no longer grace”

The entire teaching pertaining to Indulgences is fraught with doctrine which is contrary to grace taught by Paul in Romans.

Perhaps seemingly, but then you would have to say Peter and James do not rely on the Cross and are also contrary to Paul in Romans!

I am not quite sure what you mean with this statement. Please clarify.

May the Lord be honored in all things.

Len

 

[MarcoPolo]

Romans 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Why if we are justified freely by His grace and have redemption through Christ do we need to have sins expiated by any means other than His death on the cross.?

Couple quick things in explaining the Papal quote you posted again:
*CCC #1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.
CCC #2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion.*And if you want to read CCC# 1987-1995 on Justification, I imagine you would be surprised. So I suspect there is a semantic issue at work here. There is nothing we can do to gain justification. (by the way, I have always encountered confusion when discussing “justification” because people understand the term differently). The Pope is talking about sins harming us, which is certainly Scriptural, as well as temporal punishment. Anyway, Catholics believe in “initial” justification as you read in the paragraphs there in the same way you do. And indulgences are merely Christ granting mercy or grace to a person or on person A because of the actions of person B (this can be seen many times in the Old and New Testaments). If you want to talk about indulgences more and the Scriptural backing, you can invite me to another thread. I feel off topic.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

See above. And just remember when Paul talks about works, especially in Romans, he is referring to works of the Law (i.e. the Mosaic Law) because the Romans are Gentiles, and he is hammering home that no longer are just the Jews the chosen people. This is the grander message of Romans if you read it, and what he is stating in this passage.

 

[unacanta]

Couple quick things in explaining the Papal quote you posted again:
CCC #1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.
CCC #2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion.And if you want to read CCC# 1987-1995 on Justification, I imagine you would be surprised. So I suspect there is a semantic issue at work here. There is nothing we can do to gain justification. (by the way, I have always encountered confusion when discussing “justification” because people understand the term differently). The Pope is talking about sins harming us, which is certainly Scriptural, as well as temporal punishment. Anyway, Catholics believe in “initial” justification as you read in the paragraphs there in the same way you do. And indulgences are merely Christ granting mercy or grace to a person or on person A because of the actions of person B (this can be seen many times in the Old and New Testaments). If you want to talk about indulgences more and the Scriptural backing, you can invite me to another thread. I feel off topic.

See above. And just remember when Paul talks about works, especially in Romans, he is referring to works of the Law (i.e. the Mosaic Law) because the Romans are Gentiles, and he is hammering home that no longer are just the Jews the chosen people. This is the grander message of Romans if you read it, and what he is stating in this passage.

It would be helpful to continue our discussion in a diffterent thread. I am not sure how to do so since I am new here:shrug:

Len

 

[MarcoPolo]

It would be helpful to continue our discussion in a diffterent thread. I am not sure how to do so since I am new here:shrug:

Len

When you go into a category, like here for instance, there is the option to click on the “New Thread” button. So pick the category that best applies and ask away!

 

[mercygate]

Thank you for some good insights, but let’s go back to 1.Pet. 2:24 and try to understand what it means…
The Church doesn’t deny substitution, it is true, but the Church means substitution by representation rather than replacement, since the Church has never taught that God punished Christ in our place or that Christ paid for our sins in the sense that the Protestants believe, suffering the torments of hell and bearing the legal punishment for our sins… sooo my point iiis, in what sense do we understand that Christ “bore” our sins, if we don’t believe that our sins were imputed to him in the sense that he became sinful so that God punished him…

Here I go, probably putting my foot in it.

The idea of substitutionary atonement (penal substitution) casts the matter as a legal or financial transaction. This is sometimes referred to as a “legal fiction” because it means that righteousness is imputed to us based on Jesus’ sacrifice but that Jesus’ sacrifice did not actually make us righteous.

The Catholic view sees the sacrifice as Christ’s completing – in His flesh, united to His divinity – what human nature unaided could not accomplish on its own. His offering, which we appropriate in faith, actually MAKES us righteous. It does not merely allow God to CONSIDER us righteous.

Need to catch my breath now. Catch ya later.

 

[unacanta]

Here I go, probably putting my foot in it.

The idea of substitutionary atonement (penal substitution) casts the matter as a legal or financial transaction. This is sometimes referred to as a “legal fiction” because it means that righteousness is imputed to us based on Jesus’ sacrifice but that Jesus’ sacrifice did not actually make us righteous.

The Catholic view sees the sacrifice as Christ’s completing – in His flesh, united to His divinity – what human nature unaided could not accomplish on its own. His offering, which we appropriate in faith, actually MAKES us righteous. It does not merely allow God to CONSIDER us righteous.

Need to catch my breath now. Catch ya later.

I have to admit I agree with you here. In a court room, the defendent whom comes in is either guilty or innocent. When the judge declares him innocent, then he is innocent irregardless of the evidence against him. He is considered innocent prior to his appearence in the court of law. Likewise, if he is declared guilty by the judge, he is considered guilty before he walked into the court room.

The point I suppose is that through one man death and sin entered the world and all are considered guilty by his actions. So it is now with Christ, because of His righteousness we are considered innocent because of the one man. It is a God thing.

GOD IS PRETTY DANG COOL:thumbsup:

 

[mercygate]

I have to admit I agree with you here. In a court room, the defendent whom comes in is either guilty or innocent. When the judge declares him innocent, then he is innocent irregardless of the evidence against him. He is considered innocent prior to his appearence in the court of law. Likewise, if he is declared guilty by the judge, he is considered guilty before he walked into the court room.

The point I suppose is that through one man death and sin entered the world and all are considered guilty by his actions. So it is now with Christ, because of His righteousness we are considered innocent because of the one man. It is a God thing.

GOD IS PRETTY DANG COOL:thumbsup:

But Catholics say the “God thing”[aka, the Covenant Blood] actually renders us righteous in FACT. We’re big on that verse about nothing unclean entering the Heavenly City.

Also, the idea the one is innocent until proven guilty is a latecomer in jurisprudence. The Roman model, as opposed to the English, presumes guilt. I suppose if God had been an Englishman, the Incarnation would have been unnecessary. Maybe that’s why Pelagianism had to be an Englishman’s heresy.

 

[mercygate]

But Catholics say the “God thing”[aka, the Covenant Blood] actually renders us righteous in FACT. We’re big on that verse about nothing unclean entering the Heavenly City. Also, the “innocent until proven guilty” idea is a latecomer in jurisprudence. Roman law, as opposed to the English system presumes guilt (I think).