A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Hey e-bob! Do you have a link to this? I’ve been out and about today and missed it. Thx.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
I was a day early-coming out tomorrowHey e-bob! Do you have a link to this? I’ve been out and about today and missed it. Thx.
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/search?q=LUMEN
M
michaelp
Guest
May be so, but my dialogue came with Dave Armstrong (read comments 65 and 67 here. This is from yesterday). For now, forgive me, but unless you tell me why your opinion and interpretation of things is better than his, I will have to go with him. Your disagreement over the interpretation of your faith is interesting though. I am glad to have gotten your perspective.
E
estesbob
Guest
Uh Michael-at some point you will realize we are not talking about “my” interpretation or Dave Armstrong’s interpretations-we are talking about the teachings of the Catholic Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Bridging the “Faith Alone” Divide
Catholics and Protestants disagree mightily on the doctrine of justification. However, a closer look at the concepts involved reveals that the two sides are much closer in understanding than the fireworks suggest.
To begin, Catholics accept three theological virtues: faith, hope & charity.
Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us…because he is truth itself. (CCC 1814)
Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)
Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)
In common Catholic usage, faith is unconditional belief in God, hope is unconditional trust in God, and charity is unconditional love for God.
The Catholic definition of faith (from the Greek, pistis) is derived from the sense found in Romans 14 and James 2; namely, that “faith” means intellectual acceptance of a body of theological beliefs known collectively as “the faith”.
This definition is supported by scripture in three ways: 1) the Romans 14 sense of pistis is the more common one in the New Testament; 2) the New Testament contains more than 40 references to “the faith”, so the connection between pistis and intellectual belief is very strong in this usage, and 3) this view of pistis has the advantage of maintaining the distinction between faith and the other two theological virtues and prevents blurring of their characteristics.
Viewing the definitions given above, one will note the similarities between the Catholic virtue of hope and the common Protestant definition of faith; that is, an unconditional trust in Jesus Christ and reliance on the Holy Spirit instead of on one’s own strength. At the same time, Protestants should have no problem accepting the idea that faith—as they define it—must also contain the intellectual assent to God that Catholics call faith since they should agree that a person with saving faith must believe whatever God says. Thus, the Protestant idea of faith includes what Catholics call faith (intellectual assent) and what Catholics call hope (trust in God).
Further, if a Protestant accepts the idea that saving faith is that which works in love (charity) as expressed in Galatians 5:6, then the Protestant and Catholic positions are equivalent. The reason is that a faith which works by charity produces acts of love. But a faith that produces acts of love is a faith that must include the virtue of charity since the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of love in the first place. Thus, the Protestant idea of faith includes what Catholics call charity.
Putting this all together, we see the following:
(heehee…continued)
Catholics and Protestants disagree mightily on the doctrine of justification. However, a closer look at the concepts involved reveals that the two sides are much closer in understanding than the fireworks suggest.
To begin, Catholics accept three theological virtues: faith, hope & charity.
Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us…because he is truth itself. (CCC 1814)
Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)
Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)
In common Catholic usage, faith is unconditional belief in God, hope is unconditional trust in God, and charity is unconditional love for God.
The Catholic definition of faith (from the Greek, pistis) is derived from the sense found in Romans 14 and James 2; namely, that “faith” means intellectual acceptance of a body of theological beliefs known collectively as “the faith”.
This definition is supported by scripture in three ways: 1) the Romans 14 sense of pistis is the more common one in the New Testament; 2) the New Testament contains more than 40 references to “the faith”, so the connection between pistis and intellectual belief is very strong in this usage, and 3) this view of pistis has the advantage of maintaining the distinction between faith and the other two theological virtues and prevents blurring of their characteristics.
Viewing the definitions given above, one will note the similarities between the Catholic virtue of hope and the common Protestant definition of faith; that is, an unconditional trust in Jesus Christ and reliance on the Holy Spirit instead of on one’s own strength. At the same time, Protestants should have no problem accepting the idea that faith—as they define it—must also contain the intellectual assent to God that Catholics call faith since they should agree that a person with saving faith must believe whatever God says. Thus, the Protestant idea of faith includes what Catholics call faith (intellectual assent) and what Catholics call hope (trust in God).
Further, if a Protestant accepts the idea that saving faith is that which works in love (charity) as expressed in Galatians 5:6, then the Protestant and Catholic positions are equivalent. The reason is that a faith which works by charity produces acts of love. But a faith that produces acts of love is a faith that must include the virtue of charity since the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of love in the first place. Thus, the Protestant idea of faith includes what Catholics call charity.
Putting this all together, we see the following:
(heehee…continued)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity
From this formula, we can see that Catholics rightly reject the idea that one can be justified by intellectual belief only. So do Protestants. Misunderstandings occur when Catholics reject justification by “faith alone” according to their definition of faith while Protestants cling firmly to this doctrine according to their definition of faith.
Therefore, if Catholics and Protestants come to a mutual understanding of one another’s terminology and the definitions of these terms, they can also agree on what does and does not constitute the faith needed for justification. Justification by Faith Alone (or sola fide) does not need to be a bitterly divisive issue separating Catholics and Protestants.
*Adapted from “*Justification: By ‘Faith Alone’?” by James Akin.
From this formula, we can see that Catholics rightly reject the idea that one can be justified by intellectual belief only. So do Protestants. Misunderstandings occur when Catholics reject justification by “faith alone” according to their definition of faith while Protestants cling firmly to this doctrine according to their definition of faith.
Therefore, if Catholics and Protestants come to a mutual understanding of one another’s terminology and the definitions of these terms, they can also agree on what does and does not constitute the faith needed for justification. Justification by Faith Alone (or sola fide) does not need to be a bitterly divisive issue separating Catholics and Protestants.
*Adapted from “*Justification: By ‘Faith Alone’?” by James Akin.
M
michaelp
Guest
Yes, I understand. Upon which you disagree. Therefore, I don’t know how else to put it. How would you suggest that I phrase your disagreement?
M
michaelp
Guest
Randy, that is very helpful. It really hits at the purpose of my thread. I am coming closer and closer to agreeing with Jimmy at this point.
I wonder what others think about it.
E
estesbob
Guest
Then you still have the problem of the Protestants rejectng the Pope, the authority of the Church, The tradions of the Church, The Sacrament, ,the Saints, ,The Real presence, etc. And that is assuming that somehow we bridge over the differences on Scripture, faith/works and papal/Magestirum infalibility. . There is simply no way you paper over these differences. Its like saying that a vegetarian and a meat eater can reconcile their diets becausethey both eat off plates
The only way there can be unity is for protestantrs t return to the one true Church. It really is that easy.
M
michaelp
Guest
Slow down my friend…one at a time if you are really interested. Concerning authority, see here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=167380
The traditions and saints are a breeze. Sacraments might be a little harder, but I think we can even handle those if most Protestants knew how they are interpreted by Catholics today.
E
estesbob
Guest
There you go again-Sacraments are OK if depending on how one interprets them There is your fatal flaw-you believe that everything is up for grabs because we all get to decide what Church Doctrines mean. It simply is not so. The fact that you use use the phrase “how they are interpreted by Catholics today” proves what I said earlier in this thread. You are dialoging with either poorly catechized or dissident “Catholics” Such a dialog is useless.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
And presumably there will be an end to groundless accusations from some Protestants that Catholics believe that works will give us Salvation? That would be a relief and a huge step forward.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Catholicism has a teaching authority. That teaching authority has been established by Jesus Himself. On matters of faith and morals, that teaching authority does not allow for individual interpretation, except inasmuch as one is genuinely questioning and searching for answers – as opposed to rebelling against what the Holy Spirit has protected for over 2000 years.
An example of rebellion is this: one questions; one receives the answers; one continues to cleave to one’s preconceived notions. This kind of questioning is easily shown to be rhetorical, not genuine, and designed to undermine authority. Rhetorical questions are not questions at all; they are statements.
Folks who are genuinely seeking Jesus or even simply some semblance of truth will understand this quickly. One of the reasons this website has the name Catholic Answers imho is that Catholicism actually offers answers rather than endlessly circular reasoning and questions which beget more questions which beget more questions.
The gap in your theories is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and the wrong assumption that you can attempt to persuade Catholics of your personal point of view using the same methodology you use to persuade Protestants of your personal point of view.
You can point to the theories of individual Catholics until the cows come home – all to no avail. It is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church which you must address in order for your criticisms and comparisons to make any sense.
You cannot ‘phrase’ your way around this reality. Nor can you evade or ignore it for very long. Moreover, I do not believe the disagreement belongs to e-bob nor even to the Catholic Church, but to you.
A
AKG
Guest
Militant Islam is a political entity that hides behind a mask of religion. It presents a public distortion of Islamic faith
much like the Spanish Inquisition presented a public distortion of the Catholic faith.I think the battle is between two political movements being used as fronts by elitists that hunger and thirst for power and domination of others: Libertinism and Islamo-Fascist Militantism.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Yes, I must say that these major hurdles need to be navigated before we can be assured of any meaningful rapprochement.
It is easy to say that certain Catholic doctrines are – in essence – exactly the same as some Protestant teachings and that therefore Catholics are really Protestants and should backstroke across the Tiber toward Luther with his arms outstretched on the shore.
But saying so doesn’t make it so.
I believe that there must be some sort of accountablity to the vulnerable, youthful, and uninformed among the Protestant populations to provide accurate assessments of their position vis a vis the Catholic Church.
Perpetrating the intentional fallacy doesn’t cut it. Why? Because intents and outcome are not necessarily the same. And let’s remember that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Which begs the question: why are these major doctrinal differences being papered over at this time? To what end? I have asked this question in various forms several times now over the course of two threads. So far there has been no answer.
Yes. Think about it. References have been made to the individual opinions of various Catholics before. Let’s admit that many Catholics are among us who disagree with certain aspects of Magisterial teaching. But as long as they are asking questions with a view to finding answers and not challenging authority with a view to establishing their own tyrannies, then they are still Catholics.
Think about it. What is to stop those who are searching among the Protestant populations to conduct their search – with far more clarity and efficiency – as Catholics?
Those who like rebellion; those who prefer their own counsel to the counsel of the Church which Jesus established – whether Protestant or Catholic – always have the ‘refuge’ which Luther provided.
Is there a problem with that? Thoughts?
One of the obstacles which Protestants must overcome is the wrongful misrepresentation and demonization of Catholicism. If any of these innuendos, half-truths, or downright fables about Catholicism were true then who could blame Protestants for not learning how to swim?
But who is perpetrating these innuendos, half-truths, and downright fables? Certainly not the Catholic Church. The Church is the Defender of Free Will, Reason, and Science. One must ask why someone would seek to misrepresent Catholicism in order to defeat it.
Surely the alternative can stand on the merits of reason and truth. Am I misguided in saying this?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
An evasion. All you have done is provided a link to your second thread which is on Sola Scriptura and attempted to shift the discussion from this thread to that thread without good reason. Please answer e-bob’s post on this thread.
Individual Catholics are one thing. But could you handle the Sacraments if you knew how the Church Herself interprets them? That’s another question which you continually evade: the teaching authority of the Church.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Protestants – like anyone else – deserve to know the truth about Catholicism. That way they can make informed decisions about where they want to be.
The truth about Catholicism can be found in the Catechism. There are scores of other reliable documents – and we can provide links as the need arises – but the Catechism is a good start. Moreover, as we have said before, good basics can be found in the Catholic Answers Library.
Why settle for less?
J
jmcrae
Guest
Scott Hahn certainly does not hold to “prima Scriptura” - he did when he was the leader of a Protestant congregation (this was as opposed to “sola Scriptura” - the idea that all necessary doctrine can be found within the pages of the Old and New Testaments) when he was beginning to discover the value of sacred Tradition - however, he learned along the way that the Scriptures are not anything close to “prima” - we had no canon of the New Testament until 385 AD (proposed by Pope St. Damasus), and it was not infallibly promulgated to the universal Church by Pope St. Innocent I until some time between 400 and 405 AD.
The Scriptures are a product of Sacred Tradition, just like the Nicene Creed and the Rosary - they do not precede it, by a long shot, and they certainly do not guide it.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
This post is very confusing, Pastor Mike. Can you please point us to any claim made that I represented the whole? Thank you.I would say that the easiest route to who represents the whole is vatican.va and the Catechism yet I note that you quite often cite Catholics giving their individual points of view as if they represented the whole.
We are greatly blessed as Catholics to have one Authority which does speak for the whole of the Church. And this reality should make it very easy for non-Catholics to find accurate information on what we believe.
It is not as easy for us to find who speaks for the whole of the Protestant spectrum or even for the whole of American Evangelicals. Hence my questions about what are the essentials of Christian faith which we might hold in common.
And as for my ‘contrary spirit’, now you know that this is an ad hominem error, Sir.
I (and several others) may disagree with what you have to say, but disagreeing with you says nothing about my spirit. Only God is the judge of my spirit.
It is encouraging btw to learn that you are not trying to convert anyone.
- Status