By George...

[twinc]

if anyone relented of any errors it could well have been St.James who after he wrote his epistle and just before he was thrown to his death from the temple pinnacle and bludgeoned to death by beating to his head by a fuller’s staff finally proclaimed Jesus as the door or way for all to hear, but seemingly not some - also btw it is a mistaken belief by some Catholics that St.James’ stance is that of the Catholic Church and not St.Paul’s - btw for good works see Rmns.7:14-25 - twinc

lest we forget St.Paul persecuting Jesus and finally being corrected,let us recall Jesus’s so called brothers which would have included James persecuting Jesus and trying to restrain Him as being mad - lest we forget and why not - twinc

 

[De_Maria]

not at all - this is the one and only and original position straight from Christ Himself as at Jn.6:27-29 etc - twinc

In fact, your teaching so far on this thread is completely Reformed. Protestant. Fess up, you aren’t Catholic are you?

 

[De_Maria]

if anyone relented of any errors it could well have been St.James who after he wrote his epistle and just before he was thrown to his death from the temple pinnacle and bludgeoned to death by beating to his head by a fuller’s staff finally

You really need to read Scripture:
Acts 12

1Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
**2And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. **

proclaimed Jesus as the door or way for all to hear, but seemingly not some - also btw it is a mistaken belief by some Catholics that St.James’ stance is that of the Catholic Church and not St.Paul’s - btw for good works see Rmns.7:14-25 - twinc

What? Ok, now your just confusing. No one here has said that St. Paul wasn’t Catholic. So now you’ve made a complete 360, you are now seemingly conforming to Catholic teaching.

 

[De_Maria]

lest we forget St.Paul persecuting Jesus and finally being corrected,let us recall Jesus’s so called brothers which would have included James persecuting Jesus and trying to restrain Him as being mad - lest we forget and why not - twinc

What are you talking about now? Do you have anything to contribute to the subject of the thread?

 

[fhansen]

The Catholic Church? No sir. The Catholic Church does not teach we are saved by grace ALONE. The Protestants teach the five ALONES.

Saved by God ALONE
Through Christ ALONE
by Grace ALONE
through Faith ALONE
in Scripture ALONE

I thought the only “alone” we did agree on was grace alone-although not without our cooperation.

extra nos means outside of us. Grace works inside. So, although I don’t agree with the first part of that statement, the second part doesn’t seem to jive with the first part either.

That’s extra nos. Our willing participation.

OK, sorry, I thought extra nos meant outside of our own efforts. But the way it’s used here as in “Justitia Dei extra nos” or “Justitia Christi extra nos” it’s referring to imputed righteousness-an external righteousness to be sure- and has nothing to do with our own efforts or works. In fact the Reformers would strictly deny we have anything to do with the righteousness God is said to impute to us.

St. James is talking about Justicia Dei extra nos. While St. Paul is speaking about Sacramental justification.

Here is what Trent says about St Paul’s comments on the relationship of faith to justification:
**And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace. **

I’ve been reviewing Session 6, Trent’s treatise on justification, and I think it requires a great deal of reflection to understand correctly.

 

[twinc]

I thought the only “alone” we did agree on was grace alone-although not without our cooperation.

OK, sorry, I thought extra nos meant outside of our own efforts. But the way it’s used here as in “Justitia Dei extra nos” or “Justitia Christi extra nos” it’s referring to imputed righteousness-an external righteousness to be sure- and has nothing to do with our own efforts or works. In fact the Reformers would strictly deny we have anything to do with the righteousness God is said to impute to us.

Here is what Trent says about St Paul’s comments on the relationship of faith to justification:
**And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace. **

I’ve been reviewing Session 6, Trent’s treatise on justification, and I think it requires a great deal of reflection to understand correctly.

Indeed - so do come back and let us know the results of your correct understanding following on from your great deal of deep reflections - twinc

 

[twinc]

That is not my understanding. The Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent explanation:

It is not true that for the Catholic the mere “telling of one’s sins” suffices to obtain their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and ** purpose of amendment,** confession avails nothing, the pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before.
newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

The key words are PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT. In other words, we must be willing to perform the works of reparation which are given by the priest or the absolution is of no effect.

1. The Sacrament of Confession was not earned by us. It was freely instituted by God in His Mercy for our salvation.
2. However, in order to approach the Sacrament we must meet certain conditions. And in order to be forgiven and granted absolution, we must meet certain conditions. Therefore, although we don’t earn the grace, we certainly merit it
3. We can go into a great big discussion about whether man can merit anything which God gives us. But the discussion is besides the point. The point being that GOD set the value of our works and in His Mercy, He accepts our “dirty rags” in exchange for salvation. It certainly isn’t an even exchange, but He set the conditions. And it is He who judges whether we meet those conditions. In so doing, He OBLIGATED Himself to provide that which He promised to those who meet ALL His conditions. In this case, to those who confess with sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, He will grant absolution. But not before.

Many gifts are free. And yet they are still earned. For instance, a graduation gift. Do you give a child a graduation gift before he earns it by graduating? Not me.

And yet it remains a free gift. Why? Because no one is twisting my arm to give that gift. I’m free to give it or not to give it. UNLESS I promise to give it beforehand. In which case, I bind myself.

Sincerely,

De Maria

a completely false analogy,for we graduated at the start,that was our gift that was lost and was restored - God did indeed give us our graduation gift before we earned it.Since we did not really lose it but that it was lost by another,then God in His mercy it seems felt obliged to return it back to us.We must,of course,come and accept this gift with “empty hands” - twinc

 

[twinc]

You really need to read Scripture:
Acts 12

1Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
**2And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. **

What? Ok, now your just confusing. No one here has said that St. Paul wasn’t Catholic. So now you’ve made a complete 360, you are now seemingly conforming to Catholic teaching.

this besides being base over apex is hilarious - you really must give up reading the scriptures wrongly - guess what - wrong James - twinc

 

[fhansen]

Indeed - so do come back and let us know the results of your correct understanding following on from your great deal of deep reflections - twinc

Thanks, twinc, but I wasn’t suggesting I’d be so successful at it-only that the subject isn’t so simple as we might think. You, for example, could certainly benefit from meditating on it.

 

[twinc]

What are you talking about now? Do you have anything to contribute to the subject of the thread?

so,of course,it seems it is you and not I that needs to study the scriptures- but of course I also need to and do and will continue to do - see Mark.3:21 - twinc

 

[De_Maria]

a completely false analogy,for we graduated at the start,that was our gift that was lost and was restored

Nope. Adam and Eve failed their graduating exam. They failed because they hooked up with the campus hoodlum and he got them expelled.

The original gift was their tuition, food and lodging paid admission in the School of Eden.

• God did indeed give us our graduation gift before we earned it.

No, He didn’t. Adam and Eve were born in Eden, a paradise on earth. They were born with ORIGINAL Justice. But not with PERFECT Justice which can only be achieved in the after life, in Heaven.

Although Original Justice was a free gift, it also came with a very important condition. Absolute obedience. Since they did not obey, they lost their gift and therefore could no longer pass it down to their progeny. The only thing they could pass down is the new condition of their soul, Original Sin.

Since we did not really lose it but that it was lost by another,then God in His mercy it seems felt obliged to return it back to us.We must,of course,come and accept this gift with “empty hands” - twinc

And coming towards God and accepting from Him a gift are both works. Therefore, friend, again, we are saved by works and not by faith only, just as it says in Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

I thought the only “alone” we did agree on was grace alone-although not without our cooperation.

That is precisely why the Church never calls it “grace alone”. Because our cooperation and participation is required. The Catholic equivalent of “grace alone” is “all is grace”. Which means that even the faith with which we cooperate and participate in our salvation is a God given grace.

Note that even St. Paul doesn’t say Grace alone. He says “grace THROUGH faith”
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God;

Meaning that faith is also a gift of God, a grace. Ironically, faith is also a work. It is the work of God which WE must do to be saved:
John 6:
[27] Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. [28] They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? [29] Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.

OK, sorry, I thought extra nos meant outside of our own efforts. But the way it’s used here as in “Justitia Dei extra nos” or “Justitia Christi extra nos” it’s referring to imputed righteousness-an external righteousness to be sure- and has nothing to do with our own efforts or works. In fact the Reformers would strictly deny we have anything to do with the righteousness God is said to impute to us.

Justitia Christi extra nos is not the same as Justitia Dei extra nos. You are correct in your description of the Reformers definition of that term.

In another article, the Catholic Encyclopedia explains:
By this, however, we do not assert that the “justitia Dei extra nos” is of no importance in the process of justification. For, even if it is not the formal cause of justification (causa formalis), it is nevertheless its true exemplar (causa exemplaris), inasmuch as the soul receives a sanctity in imitation of God’s own holiness.
newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

Here is what Trent says about St Paul’s comments on the relationship of faith to justification:
**And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace. **

I’ve been reviewing Session 6, Trent’s treatise on justification, and I think it requires a great deal of reflection to understand correctly.

I agree. There’s a great deal more about justification in Session 6 though. This for instance, describes Sacramental justification, specifically in Baptism:
**CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
**In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]

Sorry, my response was too long, I’ll have to cut it in two. To be continued:

 

[De_Maria]

Continued

Whereas, this, describes how Justitia Dei Extra Nos (JDEN) works together with the Sacraments in the Christian economy. I’ll highlight in italics the portion which has to do with JDEN:
**CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS
**
It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.
Hence, when it is said in the sacred writings:
Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,[19] we are reminded of our liberty; and when we reply:
Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,[20] we confess that we need the grace of God.

There is more:

**CHAPTER VI
THE MANNER OF PREPARATION
**Now, they [the adults] are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing,[21] they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;[22] and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism;[23] finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.
Of this disposition it is written:
He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him;[24] and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee;[25] and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin;[26] and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost;[27] and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;[28] finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.[29]

There is much more, but I think this probably suffices to make the point. You see then how our efforts to justify ourselves prepare us for the true Justification by the Holy Spirit which can only be accomplished in the Sacraments.

So, to come back to the point I was making originally, I think that is the difference between what St. Paul and St. James are talking about. St. James is not considering the Sacraments. St. Paul is considering both JDEN and Sacramental Justification.

That is why in certain of his epistles, St. Paul agrees perfectly with St. James. Whereas in others, he seems even to contradict himself.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I hadn’t heard of Justitia Christi Extra Nos until you mentioned it. That’s why I love this type of conversations. God willing and we will all be better off for participating.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

this besides being base over apex is hilarious - you really must give up reading the scriptures wrongly - guess what - wrong James - twinc

The death either James is besides the point anyway. When will you address the subject of the thread?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[twinc]

The death either James is besides the point anyway. When will you address the subject of the thread?

Sincerely,

De Maria

okay then there is no way St.George should be the patron saint of England,for he had no ties with England.The red cross flag of England belongs to and was first carried by St.Joseph of Arimathae who came here and is buried here etc - he should by right be our patron saint - btw see Romans.3:12,it seems you missed it on the way to 28 - twinc

 

[De_Maria]

okay then there is no way St.George should be the patron saint of England,for he had no ties with England.The red cross flag of England belongs to and was first carried by St.Joseph of Arimathae who came here and is buried here etc - he should by right be our patron saint - btw see Romans.3:12,it seems you missed it on the way to 28 - twinc

I guess you find yourself empowered by making nonsensical statements. Have you ever heard the saying, “kick the dust off my heels.” I am doing that now.