Do Catholics no longer believe in salvation by works?

[KingAlfred]

I’m beginning to wonder if my understanding of the Catholic view of salvation is correct. According to an article on Zenit, during an Audience last Wednesday (November 19, 2008), the Pope endorsed Martin Luther’s notion of justification by faith alone. The wording was evidently as follows:

“That is why Luther’s expression “sola fide” is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love.”

At the end of the Audience (the article states), Benedict XVI greeted pilgrims in several languages. In English, he said:

“Dear Brothers and Sisters,
In our continuing catechesis on St. Paul, we now consider his teaching on our justification. Paul’s experience of the Risen Lord on the road to Damascus led him to see that it is only by faith in Christ, and not by any merit of our own, that we are made righteous before God.”

Check it out:

zenit.org/article-24302?l=english

So my question is:

Do Catholics no longer believe in salvation by works?

Many thanks.

Grace and peace,
Mick

I do. I know I must work very hard for my salvation. Nonetheless, it’s not ritualistic works, but a lifetime of service.

 

[SSTeacher]

A mortal sin is by definition a deliberate choice to go against God.

I can accept that. I think that “a deliberate choice to go against God” is actually a definition of just the one word “sin.”

There is no “pique” in the fact that God cannot have eternal fellowship with someone who deliberately chooses to sin and refuses to repent.

Perhaps this is where I am misunderstanding the Catholic position. I am under the impression that Catholic teaching is that if a person commits a mortal sin all the sanctifying grace in his or her soul is expunged/crushed/killed/deleted and that if the person remains in this condition he or she will go to Hell if he or she dies. If I have this wrong then I have everything wrong and you can easily lead me out of my error by pointing out the thought process by which I will arrive at the truth. Now, I’m not sure what sanctifying grace is. This is something that isn’t in the Bible. That doesn’t necessarily make it wrong but I suspect it falls into the category of “theological” so I’m already feeling wary.

At any rate let me proceed to unfold my possible error.

I submit that all sins are serious. It was the sin of Adam and Eve – who deliberately went against God – that landed the human race in the mess it’s now in. Sin is the central problem of the human race.

What I’m getting at is that the categorization of sins into “mortal” and “venial” appears to me to be a man–made, post–Apostolic interpolation. I’m not questioning the idea that some sins are greater than others. When Jesus exchanged words with Pilate, He said, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” What I’m getting at is that the Catholic teaching appears to have a certain man–made sense to it. If all sin is serious, I don’t understand where this idea of sanctifying grace in the soul being killed by the more serious sins comes from.

One of the mortal sins that the Catholic Church has identified is eating meat on a Friday. I’m under the impression that it’s no longer possible for a person to commit this sin since the rule is no longer in place. But perhaps you see the anomaly? How can eating meat on a Friday be a serious sin? What yardstick was used to arrive at this judgment?

The answer presumably is because the Catholic Church says that eating meat on Friday is a serious sin. And yet the Catholic Church can just as arbitrarily teach the opposite: that eating meat on Friday is not a serious sin. There’s something wrong with this picture.

And that’s how I arrive at my conclusion that the Catholic Church by its teaching in this respect is portraying God as having fits of pique. Somebody eats meat on a Friday and God gets so mad that He immediately damns that person to Hell until that person gets along to confession. Then the Catholic Church changes the the rule whereupon God doesn’t get mad on a Friday over this particular issue. It seems to me this is, at the very least, a disrespectful portrayal of the nature of Almighty God.

I don’t personally think God is like that. The Bible suggests that God is slow to anger. Even in the Old Testament.

I guess if one is a Catholic then one immediately points to disobedience and failing to submit to Authority and the whole thing makes sense. But if you’re outside the Catholic Church looking in and wondering about it, as I am, it makes little sense – especially as the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t embrace the same teaching. Why do they not? Well, it’s clearly a post–1054 notion. And that’s certainly a relevant consideration for a Protestant inquirer, surely? This particular issue is not so distant from the issue that led to the Protestant Reformation, is it?

The only way your criticism makes sense is if you are a universalist.

Well, yes, I have to admit that I have been struggling for some time with the whole idea of eternal damnation. I daresay that’s what is making my submissions seem illogical. My thought patterns are along the usual lines about the punishment fitting the crime. I don’t think there’s much anybody can do to help me with that one. I’ll either work my way through it and discard it or be stuck with it unable to get past it. God will help me with it, I feel sure.

Please forgive me if I have spoken too heatedly. You responded very graciously to my last (rather intemperate) post, and I don’t want to try your patience. But this is an issue on which I feel very strongly. I’m a Wesleyan with strong Catholic leanings who grew up among Baptists; I’m a historian of the Reformation who finds it frustrating that so many Protestants don’t understand where their theological assumptions come from; and I’m a professor at an evangelical college. All of these things make this a very important issue for me.

In Christ,

Edwin

Well, of course, I forgive you without qualification if you feel that you were too heated inside but as far as I’m concerned your analysis has been spot on and you’ve been helping me look at my thinking. Since I’m actually questioning my presuppositions, I’m putting myself in great danger so reasoned analysis can only help. I can understand your frustrations so I apologize for my inconsistencies but I’m sorry to say that they’ll probably continue as I open myself up to new possibilities. But please rest assured that you are not trying my patience. In fact I should say that your approach is absolutely in line with 1 Peter 3:15 and I commend you for it.

Feel free to jump on anything I say in my posts. I sure ain’t the brightest bulb in Christendom.
May God bless you in all your endeavors,
Mick

 

[bpbasilphx]

Roman Catholics NEVER believed in “salvation by works.” Neither have Orthodox or the non-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches.

But when I was a Baptist, we were taught that we couldn’t be saved unless we walked down the aisle to “Just as I Am” or equivalent.

After I got away from this and embraced the truth, the pastor of the Baptist Church where I was raised said, “We know that Betty is in heaven because on [such and such a date] she gave her heart to Jesus Christ,” as he stood by her open grave.

Of course, he had never met her.

No mention was made of her having an affair with a married man, having an abortion, and possibly committing suicide.

 

[paul_c]

SSTeacher,
I give you all the credit in the world for being humble enough to be willing to question your suppositions. I find that a very rare trait.

In your latest post you have a series of questions about the catholic postion on mortal sin. Here is the link to the Catholic Catechism that explains the official position : scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm

This should at least clarify the catholic position for you…

 

[guanophore]

The writings of Ignatius have always been controversial and have been widely disputed. There are fifteen epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. The first three exist only in Latin and the rest are extant also in Greek:

I beleive the Gods Word not mans. Let God be true but every man a liar. Where is you Faith in man or God.

Well, ok, for the sake of discussion, let’s say the letter is spurious, and is not from a disciple of the Apostles. What do you think of these ideas?

 

[guanophore]

I do. I know I must work very hard for my salvation. Nonetheless, it’s not ritualistic works, but a lifetime of service.

I think there is a big difference between working “out” what has been worked in us by the Spirit, and working “for” our salvation. Scripture is clear that salvation is a free gift, one for which we do not work, but trust in God, who justifies the ungodly.

I agree with you, though, it is a lot of very hard work.

 

[SSTeacher]

I will indeed give you the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you very much.

Look, the criteria for a sin to be mortal is three things

It has to be serious (grave matter)
you need to know its a sin
and you need to do it deliberately, knowing that it will separate you from God.

I understand.

So, to commit a mortal sin, you are literally intentionally separating yourself from God. So you have made a decision that you prefered that sin to God. Now, God in his mercy, has created the sacrament of reconciliation (you might know it as confession) to provide a path back for the penetent sinner. But the sinner must desire to be reconciled and he must make the sin right in whatever way is appropriate. (I.e, if you steal, give it back, do pennance, etc). This is how souls are purified on earth. If the purification process isn’t completed before death, it is competed in purgatory, ensuring our worthiness to enter heaven.
If the sinner shows no desire to be reconciled with God, God does not force him to do so. In this case, he will go to Hell.
God is merciful and just and he respects us humans enough to give us free will and responsibility.

I follow the reasoning.

So, I ask you a few questions:
Can someone who has been “saved” ever commit a serious sin?

Yes, I have done and do.

If so, does everyone of them want to be reconciled with God?

I honestly don’t think it’s possible for a human being to do bad for the sake of it and that seems to me to be the scenario for somebody who refuses to be reconciled to God. On the other hand, I know bitter unforgiving people who refuse to be reconciled to each other. At any rate, as far as I’m concerned, I want to be reconciled to God. I feel very uneasy and uncomfortable and out of sorts with myself when I know I’ve done wrong. That’s a daily thing with me.

If not, would God, in your view, be justified in forcing them to go to Heaven? Sure, it’s in their best interest, but is it their choice?

Well, if I were to suppose that somehow I had ended up with my personality so twisted and distorted and grotesque that my conscience was completely seared, I guess I’d be coming near to the hypothetical personality that does bad for the sake of it even though I’ve just said I don’t think such a metamorphosis is possible. But I’ll allow that it might be. In that case, then, I suppose God wouldn’t be able to allow me into Heaven because I would be incapable of any kind of relationship with Him in accordance with the settled order that He has created i.e. that I should be still and know that He is God and that I should worship Him and praise Him for who He is simply because that’s the right order of things and the whole point of everything. I think if my personality were as twisted as I’m trying to imagine (which is a pretty horrible image) I’d not only be incapable of a relationship with Almighty God but I’d also be incapable of living in harmony with anyone. My entire focus would be on myself leaving no room for anyone else. I suppose I’d be like a spiritual black hole. So if I were allowed into Heaven, I’d mess everything up just by my presence.

In your mind, which God would be more just? One that forces all men to do what he wants and makes all the decisions for them or one that gives men the freedom to choose their own path and holds them responsible for their decisions?

I want to say it’s the first God because the idea of damnation for all eternity not only terrifies me but also brings with it the nagging thought that a God who arranges for that to happen couldn’t possibly be just. But then I’m brought to the realization that it’s my sense of justice that is the yardstick I’m using to draw my conclusion and I’m left uncertain. But based on the way you’ve threaded your argument, I can’t say it isn’t the second God.

Keep in mind, that we really don’t get to choose our own God. He is “I am who am”

Yes, you’re absolutely right. I’m reminded of the report of a certain Englishman who told a Northern Irish audience that he was an atheist whereupon a woman in the audience stood up and said, “Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants that you don’t believe in?” It sounds soppy but that lady actually had a substantial point, which is that Catholics and Protestants do not agree about the nature of God.

So, that’s the question in front of me. Was the Reformation a divinely prompted exposure of error? Or was the Counter–Reformation a godly defense of truth? It’s either/or. It can’t be both/and. For the man who is prepared to listen to both sides there are no quick answers. But thanks for helping me to think through this particular issue.

SSTeacher,
I give you all the credit in the world for being humble enough to be willing to question your suppositions. I find that a very rare trait.

In your latest post you have a series of questions about the catholic postion on mortal sin. Here is the link to the Catholic Catechism that explains the official position : scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm

This should at least clarify the catholic position for you…

Thank you for being so gracious. I appreciate you spending time providing me with guidance and information.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[guanophore]

So, that’s the question in front of me. Was the Reformation a divinely prompted exposure of error?

Certainly there was error. However, it was error of practice, not of doctrine. Where the Reformers strayed was leaving the Apostolic Teaching, instead of just the improper behavior of those claiming to espouse it. Men are always in need of reform.

 Or was the Counter–Reformation a godly defense of truth?  It’s either/or.  It can't be  both/and.  For the man who is prepared to listen to both sides there are no quick answers.  But thanks for helping me to think through this particular issue.

Cordially,
Mick

Certainly both sides recognized the need for reform. Both believed they were following God.

Thank you for your sincere inquiry.

 

[Contarini]

I can accept that. I think that “a deliberate choice to go against God” is actually a definition of just the one word “sin.”

OK. A sin can also be defined as anything that falls short of perfect love for God and neighbor. That’s the basic difference between a mortal and a venial sin right there.

Perhaps this is where I am misunderstanding the Catholic position. I am under the impression that Catholic teaching is that if a person commits a mortal sin all the sanctifying grace in his or her soul is expunged/crushed/killed/deleted and that if the person remains in this condition he or she will go to Hell if he or she dies.

No, you’re right. In terms of official Catholic teaching that is. Some modern Catholic theologians have proposed alternative views (such as the “fundamental option” theory which says that no single act can separate us from God–it would have to be a long-term change in your fundamental orientation; but this has been rejected by the Vatican). And Catholics (including official texts such as the 1992 Catechism) are more generous than they used to be in their definition of what it takes to make a truly deliberate choice to commit a serious sin. One obvious example is suicide–the dominant view in the Catholic Church today is that most suicides are not fully responsible for their actions and thus do not necessarily go to hell.

Now, I’m not sure what sanctifying grace is.

In Western Catholicism since about the 13th century it’s been defined as a quality infused into the soul by God, which enables us to act together with the Holy Spirit to do things that are pleasing to God. The older view (and the view of Eastern Christians), which on the whole I prefer, is that it is the life of God within the soul. (These aren’t entirely incompatible, of course.)

This is something that isn’t in the Bible. That doesn’t necessarily make it wrong but I suspect it falls into the category of “theological” so I’m already feeling wary.

I don’t know what definition of “theological” makes it a bad word for you, but I don’t see how one can be a thinking Christian without doing theology–that is, without thinking about how one’s beliefs are related to each other and what their implications are.

As for sanctifying grace: you do believe that God is sanctifying us (making us holy), right? And you do believe in grace? Don’t you think that it is God’s grace that makes us holy? How else would we become holy?

I submit that all sins are serious.

By the definition you gave above, obviously. But as I said, if sin is defined as any “missing the mark”–any falling short of the perfection God intends for us–then there are many ways in which we fall short of that perfection that (by God’s mercy) do not break our relationship with God. A deliberate decision to act in a way incompatible with love of God and neighbor, however, is on a different level.

What I’m getting at is that the categorization of sins into “mortal” and “venial” appears to me to be a man–made, post–Apostolic interpolation. I’m not questioning the idea that some sins are greater than others. When Jesus exchanged words with Pilate, He said, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” What I’m getting at is that the Catholic teaching appears to have a certain man–made sense to it. If all sin is serious, I don’t understand where this idea of sanctifying grace in the soul being killed by the more serious sins comes from.

I think you may be misunderstanding what “serious sins” are. They aren’t just outward actions like murder or adultery. Cherishing hatred is a serious sin. Deliberately choosing to lust is a serious sin. The “deliberately” is key, of course–we often fall into sinful attitudes without making a deliberate choice. And I think there’s something to be said for the “fundamental option” view, that a single act of which a person repents fairly quickly may not actually break the person’s relationship with God. I think you have valid concerns that the traditional Catholic way of looking at these things (if you commit a serious sin you must get to a priest as soon as possible) has fostered a great deal of legalism. But the basic claim that a deliberate “choice to go against God” breaks one’s relationship with God seems entirely sound to me.

 

[Contarini]

One of the mortal sins that the Catholic Church has identified is eating meat on a Friday. I’m under the impression that it’s no longer possible for a person to commit this sin since the rule is no longer in place. But perhaps you see the anomaly? How can eating meat on a Friday be a serious sin? What yardstick was used to arrive at this judgment?

The answer presumably is because the Catholic Church says that eating meat on Friday is a serious sin. And yet the Catholic Church can just as arbitrarily teach the opposite: that eating meat on Friday is not a serious sin. There’s something wrong with this picture.
And that’s how I arrive at my conclusion that the Catholic Church by its teaching in this respect is portraying God as having fits of pique. Somebody eats meat on a Friday and God gets so mad that He immediately damns that person to Hell until that person gets along to confession. Then the Catholic Church changes the the rule whereupon God doesn’t get mad on a Friday over this particular issue. It seems to me this is, at the very least, a disrespectful portrayal of the nature of Almighty God.

I see your point. The idea that going against the disciplines of the Church is a mortal sin (if the Church decides that the discipline is important enough to warrant this) is one I have a big problem with as well. As you note below, the point for Catholics has to do with obeying the authority of the Church. And I do have to say that for me personally keeping disciplines of fasting and regular prayer is difficult, and it would be helpful to have the Church standing over me saying “you must do this.”
I don’t think the problem is that Catholics make God subject to “pique” so much as that they have an overly robust understanding of the “power of the keys”–which was the basic issue in the indulgence controversy.

especially as the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn’t embrace the same teaching. Why do they not? Well, it’s clearly a post–1054 notion. And that’s certainly a relevant consideration for a Protestant inquirer, surely?

Indeed it is. The example of the Orthodox is one of the things that has kept me from becoming Catholic. And I agree with you that they have a better approach to questions of discipline–and be it noted that their fasting disciplines are actually much stricter than those of the modern Western Catholic Church.

Well, yes, I have to admit that I have been struggling for some time with the whole idea of eternal damnation.

Well, you’re certainly not alone. You may know that John Stott some years ago shocked the evangelical world by declaring that he favored an “annihilationist” view (also held by SDAs among Trinitarian Christians, and by JWs who of course are “outside the fold” from my perspective). I myself continue to believe in the possibility of eternal damnation because Scripture seems to teach it. I justify it theologically by the principle that God does not take back His gifts. We may twist and pervert the gift of life He has given us, but the consequence will be that we exist eternally in a kind of parody of life rather than simply ceasing to exist. It is indeed a horrible thought. Personally, I’d be quicker to adopt universalism than annihilationism. I have some openness to the view called “hopeful universalism,” which says that we can hope that everyone will be saved (i.e., we do not have to declare dogmatically that there will be at least one person in hell) but cannot say that universal salvation is certain.

I think you would agree, though, that evangelicalism as a whole has traditionally held quite strongly to the view that people who do not accept the Gospel, including the unevangelized, will be eternally damned. And that’s why I can’t see that the evangelical Protestant view of God is on the whole more merciful or “slower to anger” than the Catholic God. Of course, both evangelicals and Catholics have moved in a gentler direction in recent decades, but Catholics on the whole much faster and more decisively than evangelicals.

Since I’m actually questioning my presuppositions, I’m putting myself in great danger so reasoned analysis can only help.

Danger of what? Feel free to send me a private message if you wish.

Humility and gentleness are rare qualities on Internet discussion boards. It is refreshing to talk to someone who exhibits them. Thanks!

In Christ,

Edwin