D
Duane1966
Guest
If I may add my 2 cents. We Catholics don’t keep a tally of our works to get to heaven. What we do, is look around and see that there is work that needs to be done.
- Status
S
sudy
Guest
I think of merit as to what is owed… whether punishment or reward… though I also hope and trust in God’s mercy.
If we look at the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18, the one who is doing the reckoning forgave the debts of the slave… until it was discovered that the slave hadn’t forgiven the debts of his fellow slave. I think that this is where the ‘merit’ of good deeds (love/charity) comes in. It may not pay the debt in full but will certainly benefit us. What I’ve written here isn’t meant to negate what I wrote earlier about hoping for salvation though, because I believe that both points are true. I hope we are both in agreement
but please do correct me if I am in error.Completely agree with that.
I certainly get that impression too with the people that I know, though I was attempting to give jj the benefit of the doubt
F
fred_conty
Guest
“…for every meritorious act has for its main object the increase of grace and of eternal glory”
Taken from newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm
For a futher understanding of merit, this article explains:
•I. Nature of Merit;
•II. Existence of Merit;
•III. Conditions of Merit, and
•IV. Objects of Merit.
Taken from newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm
For a futher understanding of merit, this article explains:
•I. Nature of Merit;
•II. Existence of Merit;
•III. Conditions of Merit, and
•IV. Objects of Merit.
S
sudy
Guest
2006 The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.
2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.
2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts."62
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. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.
I found it difficult to leave any of these out as they all add to the explanation. They agree with what you posted though, Fred, just a different way of saying it.
2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.
2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts."62
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. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.
I found it difficult to leave any of these out as they all add to the explanation. They agree with what you posted though, Fred, just a different way of saying it.
J
jjsmity
Guest
I say the misunderstanding is on you. Once saved always saved is true and applies works are not needed, but they will result from true saving faith.
first part amen sister.
I agree with your statements, however i do believe you are the one only selecting certain passages on eating jesus. i would suggest you watch some debates on the subject you may find a fuller pictures of jesus. Also does the church teach faith and baptism bring grace/salvation? or eating jesus?.
that last part I agree 100% I am trying to correct misunderstandings on both sides. I agree with what you have said my fellow believer.
S
sudy
Guest
God gives everything to us… we for our part reciprocate by choosing to do what Jesus asks of us because we love Him… this means loving God and loving man (including those who are our enemies), and showing forgiveness, having mercy… trying to be like Jesus. Grace is given by God. Good works are achieved because the Holy Spirit lives with us and works through us, but we have the freedom of choice to choose to allow this to happen or we can choose to reject it. This rejection is how you would lose salvation.
I’m really not trying to run down your faith… I think that once we have faith though, we’re meant to open ourselves up to God to allow for a deeper faith… allowing ourselves to get a better understanding of what God wants for us, and from us.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm << here’s a link that can explain it much better than I can.
I’m really not too sure why you seem to think that I’m selecting certain passages as though to create a warped sense of what Jesus asks of us. Do you really think that I’d be saying any of this if I didn’t truly believe it myself? You agree that Jesus is the truth, and you agree that Jesus is both true God and true man… I was just trying to say that we are to take ‘everything’ that Jesus says to us, and not to ‘cherry pick’ passages, and now you’ve turned that argument back onto me.
I’m fairly certain that I don’t need to watch any debates to get a fuller picture of Jesus… I’m certainly not suggesting that I understand Jesus inside and out, because I really don’t, but I have the Holy Church, sacred tradition, and Sacred Scripture to guide me and help me, as well as many gifts from God.
God bless, jj.
I’m really not trying to run down your faith… I think that once we have faith though, we’re meant to open ourselves up to God to allow for a deeper faith… allowing ourselves to get a better understanding of what God wants for us, and from us.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm << here’s a link that can explain it much better than I can.
I’m really not too sure why you seem to think that I’m selecting certain passages as though to create a warped sense of what Jesus asks of us. Do you really think that I’d be saying any of this if I didn’t truly believe it myself? You agree that Jesus is the truth, and you agree that Jesus is both true God and true man… I was just trying to say that we are to take ‘everything’ that Jesus says to us, and not to ‘cherry pick’ passages, and now you’ve turned that argument back onto me.
I’m fairly certain that I don’t need to watch any debates to get a fuller picture of Jesus… I’m certainly not suggesting that I understand Jesus inside and out, because I really don’t, but I have the Holy Church, sacred tradition, and Sacred Scripture to guide me and help me, as well as many gifts from God.
God bless, jj.
J
jjsmity
Guest
Thanks for post. I not sure why you feel you are running down my faith in any way? I say when we take everything I was referring to passages on Eucharist in john] you end up with the protestant position, I think debates help show that. The very reason catholic doctrine cannot be reformed is because they only accept what rome teaches, just as Jehovah witnesses. How do you know you are interpreting what the church is saying correctly? and why not the bible?. Of course our authority is different, you intprit passages a way the church tells you to, I dont see the church with that authority before posting typical catholic passages please watch debates on peter first pope etc] so that is why we must find what we agree on and work from there.
J
JRKH
Guest
OK - - - For the sake of discussion - - - “Once saved, always saved” is true…
At what point is one guaranteed Salvation.
At what point can one know with absolute certainty that their faith is a living and saving faith and will never die (as demonstrated by a lack of works etc)?
At what point does one know for positive sure that they are good soil, and not stoney soil or soil full of brambles that will choke them out?
Now - let me be clear, I think that OSAS is quite true - or at least certain aspects of it. However, I think that we likely have a very different take on just when that guarantee kicks in.
Peace
James
G
guanophore
Guest
Oh Catholics believe in Once Saved Always Saved too, we just realize the Apostles taught that our salvation is not completed until the end of this life. After we die, we are judged, and at that time, our disposition is completed.
Yes!
D
Duane1966
Guest
I’ve watched and listened to countless hours of debates and always find the Protestant position lacking, ON EVERYTHING.
Your OSAS position is built on sand. You cannot get around the fact that IF the Corinthians, Galatians, Romans etc. are already saved, then St. Paul is wasting his time in writing to them to correct their errors. He should be out preaching the Gospel to more pagans.
You cannot get around Jesus’ teaching of the vine, where He implores us to remain in Him, lest we be cast into the fire. OSAS would respond: “no worries Jesus, I’m saved already.”
You cannot get around these verses:
41Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.nTemptations to Sin.42o*“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe [in me] to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
IF OSAS is true, then you have to say to Jesus: Ah Jesus, that person who refused to give water made an altar call, and we told him he is saved, so you CAN’T take away his reward.
If OSAS is true then what does it matter if you cause one of His little ones to sin? Since they believe in Him aren’t they saved?
Sheep in Jesus’ parables are the believers. Notice in the parable of the Lost Sheep Jesus says, IF that sheep is found, there will be much rejoicing. On the other hand, that sheep that once believed may be lost forever.
The reason that Catholic doctrines do not need reform is that they are TRUE. Why reform truth?
Authority? If you don’t recognize the Church’s authority, then whose would you recognize? In the end, with Protestantism, you can reject everyone’s authority, because what right has any of them to tell you what to do, if you disagree with them? NONE of them can claim they have the authority that Christ gave the Apostles. So in the end EVERY Protestant is their own authority. That is sad, and a terrible weight to carry.
How do I know if I am interpreting what the Church is teaching correctly? Did you really post that? You are the first I have ever heard say that. Most people say that the Church is too clear on everything. They wish the Church would, now what word am I looking for. I know someone posted it before? I KNOW. They wish the Church would DILUTE Christ’s message.
From another website on Bible interpretation:
Therefore, when a Protestant says : " I stand by the Bible alone," he does not mean that he stands by the Bible uninterpreted, for in such case the Bible is mute. He does not mean that he stands by the Bible as interpreted by the Church, for that would not be the Protestant but the Catholic principle. Nor does he mean that he stands by the Bible as interpreted by somebody else ; as that would be, according to his notion, to give up his right of private interpretation. But he means that he stands by the Bible alone as interpreted by himself, and that the sense in which he himself understands it is the Word of God. And therefore a person who is guided by this principle comes to say this :" The Bible, interpreted by the fathers, may or may not be the Word of God ; the Bible interpreted by the Church may or may not be the Word of God ; the Bible interpreted by any one besides myself mayor may not be the Word of God ; but the Bible interpreted by me, that is indeed the Word of God, my only teacher, my guide, my infallible authority.“To a Catholic who would rejoin : " What, my friend, if you were to understand some passage of Scripture in a wrong sense ?” The person who would still stick to that principle would have to reply : " That would be a great pity, but still, not acknowledging any other authority but myown private judgment, I have a right to look upon that interpretation mine as the Word of God."*And if a Catholic were to add : " Is it not reasonable to suppose the interpretation of the Bible by the whole body of bishops of the Catholic Church, though disagreeing with your private interpretation, should be the right one, and therefore more likely the word of God " the Protestant would be reduced to answer: " I do not agree, because that interpretation would not be mine" If you argue so," the Catholic may justly reply, " I must say that with you, my friend, the me and the mine stand for all arguments."*Let him who has eyes see what spirit is at the root of this boastful saying, and how shallow is the principle of standing by the Bible alone.*The Bible in the original language, or when truthfully translated, indeed in itself the Word of God, and infallible ; but the Bible is not the Word of God, nor infallible, with regard to us, unless rightly interpreted, that is, interpreted with authority, certainty, and infallibility. For if the interpretation be wrong, the Bible ceases to be, with regard to the reader the Word of God ; and if the interpretation be unauthorized, doubtful fallible, the Bible becomes, with regard to 'the reader, unbinding, doubtful, fallible.
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Duane.
Nice post. Good points. I’ve always wondered how persons who are Bible believing in that their salvation comes from reading and interpreting the Bible alone for themselves can reconcile the historical facts about the actual book of the Bible with what they believe. I mean how did Jesus save anyone prior to its writing? That the first 325 years after Ascended into Heaven. The Bible took that long to be written and settled on. So no book to save folks with yet = no one saved after His Ascension. Okay. He couldn’t if it was the ONLY means of obtaining salvation. Instead of teaching and preaching and working miracles, He should’ve sat all His disciples down and given dictation instead. He would have said “Write this in remembrance of me” rather than “Do this in remembrance of me.” And not only that, but if the Bible is the only way to be saved, then until the printing press made it available, no one was saved except those few who either copied it for others or were rich enough to own a copy. That’s another 1200 years later, as in 325 plus 1200 gives you the 1500 it took to mass produce the Bible and it really wasn’t mass produced till about another hundred years latter. Okay. God still was very limited in who He could reach cause they had no book to read! And that means that God was not capable of saving most everyone in history since He came. Pretty far fetched and doesn’t say much about God’s ability to save folks. He needed a book to do it? Yeah right. Not much of a god at all. No thanks. I prefer believing something else. The Word is alive, and a Person, Jesus Christ and He is living in me and available for me in the Sacraments. Yeah. I believe. Amen brother.
Glenda
Nice post. Good points. I’ve always wondered how persons who are Bible believing in that their salvation comes from reading and interpreting the Bible alone for themselves can reconcile the historical facts about the actual book of the Bible with what they believe. I mean how did Jesus save anyone prior to its writing? That the first 325 years after Ascended into Heaven. The Bible took that long to be written and settled on. So no book to save folks with yet = no one saved after His Ascension. Okay. He couldn’t if it was the ONLY means of obtaining salvation. Instead of teaching and preaching and working miracles, He should’ve sat all His disciples down and given dictation instead. He would have said “Write this in remembrance of me” rather than “Do this in remembrance of me.” And not only that, but if the Bible is the only way to be saved, then until the printing press made it available, no one was saved except those few who either copied it for others or were rich enough to own a copy. That’s another 1200 years later, as in 325 plus 1200 gives you the 1500 it took to mass produce the Bible and it really wasn’t mass produced till about another hundred years latter. Okay. God still was very limited in who He could reach cause they had no book to read! And that means that God was not capable of saving most everyone in history since He came. Pretty far fetched and doesn’t say much about God’s ability to save folks. He needed a book to do it? Yeah right. Not much of a god at all. No thanks. I prefer believing something else. The Word is alive, and a Person, Jesus Christ and He is living in me and available for me in the Sacraments. Yeah. I believe. Amen brother.
Glenda
D
Duane1966
Guest
Hello Glenda,
Agree with your post. A few months back I posted a question asking the same thing on a thread. For 1500 years, most Christians could not read, how were they saved? I believe in some ways they had it easier. Why? Because they had what we have now. They had the shepherds, and the Sacraments, just like us, and that is more than enough to be saved. Unfortunately, we now also have the arrogance that has come with literacy, where everyone who can read has become their own authority. How many souls have been led astray by private interpretation? The very thing that St. Peter warns against, is what many have done. The reason I said a terrible weight, in my earlier post, is by throwing out the authority of the Church, they have said to Jesus: “I will be both shepherd and sheep.”
J
JRKH
Guest
I think that one of the problems that come in on these kinds of discussions is that people on both sides tend to look at it in a forensic manner instead of charactological manner.
By this I mean we tend to talk about what we have (faith. works, grace, etc) instead of what we ARE (disciples of Christ, children of God, etc) .
We are not saved by what we “have” but by what we ARE…What we have, and what we do is based on what we are, and what we are shows in what we do.
Baptism is not just about being washed with water, either by pouring or immersion…It is about being immersed in the Will of God. It is about a complete overhaul - through repentance - of our lives,our focus, our very being. This is what is meant when Jesus speaks of being reborn.
Faith is in many ways the core of this. Without faith - that is a fully trusting commitment - how can we ever hope to be reborn or to grow in holiness? Yet faith by itself is be insufficient if it lacks love. Paul tells us this in no uncertain terms. Works then are the outpouring of this properly ordered love and faith…this repentance and rebirth.
We can rightly say that works are not a requirement since we have the thief on the cross as an example…yet there must be the desire and the intent to do the will of God (meaning good works) or else it is obvious that the faith we claim is dead.
So - We put off the old and put on the new. By grace we become a new creature. Not just “saved by (having) faith” but saved by BEING faith personified.
Now - God grant me the grace to live up to that which I have just written,
Peace
James
By this I mean we tend to talk about what we have (faith. works, grace, etc) instead of what we ARE (disciples of Christ, children of God, etc) .
We are not saved by what we “have” but by what we ARE…What we have, and what we do is based on what we are, and what we are shows in what we do.
Baptism is not just about being washed with water, either by pouring or immersion…It is about being immersed in the Will of God. It is about a complete overhaul - through repentance - of our lives,our focus, our very being. This is what is meant when Jesus speaks of being reborn.
Faith is in many ways the core of this. Without faith - that is a fully trusting commitment - how can we ever hope to be reborn or to grow in holiness? Yet faith by itself is be insufficient if it lacks love. Paul tells us this in no uncertain terms. Works then are the outpouring of this properly ordered love and faith…this repentance and rebirth.
We can rightly say that works are not a requirement since we have the thief on the cross as an example…yet there must be the desire and the intent to do the will of God (meaning good works) or else it is obvious that the faith we claim is dead.
So - We put off the old and put on the new. By grace we become a new creature. Not just “saved by (having) faith” but saved by BEING faith personified.
Now - God grant me the grace to live up to that which I have just written,
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
I have been in many discussions with protestants on these matters and have come to this conclusion…
So long as Scripture provides passages that provide evidence for both arguments, one must go with the more scripturally inclusive option.
In this case (OSAS) since Scripture provides both passages giving great assurance that salvation cannot be lost AND passages saying that it can…one needs to go with the view that one cannot be dead certain of salvation on this side of the veil.
Does this mean that we cannot have great assurance? Of course not. If fact we should take great comfort and joy in that assurance. We just need to avoid taking God’s gift for granted…or thinking that we are somehow done reforming our lives.
We need to always remember the stoney and the thorny ground…lest we die out and bear no fruit.
Peace
James
D
Duane1966
Guest
Well stated. And with much more charity than I had in my replies.
J
JRKH
Guest
Thanks. Can’t say I saw your replies as particularly uncharitable.
I think that for many of us, when we manage to have a good and serious conversation with somebody on these matters we tend to find ourselves not so far apart spiritually. It seems that we are kind of like the old saying (Oscar Wilde??): England and America are two countries divided by a common language. It just seems like many times Catholics and non-Catholics can be using the same words but hearing different meanings…
Peace
James
P
Porknpie
Guest
In the first 1,500 years of Christianity, one can not find an symbolic belief of the Lord’s Supper. Catholic East, Catholic West and Orthodox all believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The apostolic faith - that which Christ taught - can also be read in the Early Church Father’s including St. Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Marytr:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
No reformation needed. The “Catholic Church” has no authority to change was Christ has established and taught. Believing in a symbolic Lord’s Supper is a significant break from teaching of Christ and the apostles.
Let’s continue reading what the early Church believed. No where do we find The Church believing in a symbolic Lord’s Supper. No where: not in Spain, not in Africa, not in Greece, not in Macedonia, not in Asia, not in the Middle East.
Do we agree on this point above or do you have evidence in a early Church belief in a symbolic Lord’s Supper?
“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).
“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).
PnP
G
guanophore
Guest
I think your own excellent quotes disprove your statement. There were people who denied the Real Presence. They were called heretics and apostates.
S
sudy
Guest
Just to be clear. I didn’t think I was running down your faith… I thought that you may think that I was ‘attempting’ to do so, when the opposite is true.
I can’t imagine how. I think that there are some very clever people who can argue that black is white… but wearing the opposition down wouldn’t make that statement true.
As Duane says… ‘The reason that Catholic doctrines do not need reform is that they are TRUE. Why reform truth?’
Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Catholic.
If you don’t wish me to post typical Catholic passages, I’m going to have a difficult time answering this… it is clearly written in the Scripture though, and if everybody were to interpret the Scriptures for themselves, we’d end up with multiple thousands… if not millions, of different perspectives.
I was wondering about whether you have read anything by the Early Church Fathers and whether you would be interested in doing so? I haven’t purposely read anything they have written, though to be fair I have seen the occasional quote. I figured you might be interested in us doing this because these were the people who were taught directly by the Apostles and it would give us a clearer understanding of what Jesus teaches us through the Apostles… it would also put us on a level playing field because the Church was united back in those times… so you and I, and the other posters, would be on the same side and in agreement. In the Gospel of John, it says that everything that Jesus did isn’t in the Bible so some aspects of Our Lord’s teaching may materialize there. Are you interested? And, hopefully others who are reading and responding to these posts will be interested too… we can perhaps all learn something together.
S
sudy
Guest
As an alternative… if you’re not keen on reading the Early Church Fathers, we could all pray to the Holy Spirit for an increase in faith and guidance… and go on from there.
- Status