Faith ALONE, w/o works is DEAD

[JonNC]

Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081126_en.html (scroll down)

and older one

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061108_en.html

Justified through the gift of faith in Christ, we are called to live in the love of Christ for neighbour, because it is on this criterion that we shall be judged at the end of our lives. In reality Paul only repeats what Jesus himself said and which is proposed to us anew by last Sunday’s Gospel, in the parable of the Last Judgment. In the First Letter to the Corinthians St Paul pours himself out in a famous eulogy of love. It is called the “hymn to love”: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal… Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way” (1 Cor 13: 1, 4-5). Christian love is particularly demanding because it springs from Christ’s total love for us: that love that claims us, welcomes us, embraces us, sustains us, to the point of tormenting us since it forces each one to no longer live for himself, closed into his own selfishness, but for him “who for their sake died and was raised” (2 Cor 5: 15). The love of Christ makes us, in him, that new creation (cf. 2 Cor 5: 17), which comes to belong to his Mystical Body that is the Church.

Seen in this perspective, the centrality of justification without works, the primary object of Paul’s preaching, does not clash with faith that works through love; indeed, it demands that our faith itself be expressed in a life in accordance with the Spirit. Often there is seen an unfounded opposition between St Paul’s theology and that of St James, who writes in his Letter: “as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead”(2: 26). In reality, while Paul is primarily concerned to show that faith in Christ is necessary and sufficient, James accentuates the consequential relations between faith and works (cf. Jas 2: 24). Therefore, for both Paul and James, faith that is active in love testifies to the freely given gift of justification in Christ. Salvation received in Christ needs to be preserved and witnessed to “with fear and trembling. For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure… Do all things without grumbling or questioning… holding fast the word of life”, St Paul was to say further, to the Christians of Philippi (cf. Phil 2: 12-14, 16).

Amen

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Actually, here is what he says as to why he translated Romans 3:28 the way he did.

It is an issue of translation from Greek or Latin to German. The fact is that in no English translation that I am aware of, is “alone” in Romans 3:28. Why? Because it is not needed in the English. English isn’t German.

The reason for the smart-alecky, hyperbolic phrase that you sort of quoted he states also:

There is the reason for his harshness. You can look back 500 years and condemn him, but condemn him for what he actually did, and put his words in context.

Jon

I printed in full what he said. Does he really think it’s HIS scripture to translate without supervision or approval from the Church who gave it to him? Does he really think he’s the only one on the planet who could speak German? His own words speak for themselves, as are the divisions he caused.

 

[brb3]

JonNC …

Is it right for anyman to disrespect the Pope, the Chair of Peter ?

Can you not see the outrageous PRIDE/ARROGANCE Luther displayed.

Don’t you wish in hindsight, Luther had remained a Catholic Priest, and worked from within his office to bring reform he felt needed?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC …

Is it right for anyman to disrespect the Pope, the Chair of Peter ?

Can you not see the outrageous PRIDE/ARROGANCE Luther displayed.

Don’t you wish in hindsight, Luther had remained a Catholic Priest, and worked from within his office to bring reform he felt needed?

Yes, I wish that Luther and Pope Leo X and some of the bishops in Europe, and some of the political leaders in Europe at that time had acted with restraint and Christian love, in hindsight (something none of them had access to at the time).

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Actually Grace comes 1st

Agreed!

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I printed in full what he said. Does he really think it’s HIS scripture to translate without supervision or approval from the Church who gave it to him? Does he really think he’s the only one on the planet who could speak German? His own words speak for themselves, as are the divisions he caused.

well, you linked what, in full, he said. And to that I :clapping: you. Often this isn’t done. The difference is that you quoted his sarcasm, while I quoted his reason.
He was quite clear where he thought scripture came from, and he of course had the right to translate it into German. Following that, Esmer chose to use his translation for his own, so I guess Esmer thought he did a good job.

As for the divisions, it takes two to tango.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

well, you linked what, in full, he said. And to that I :clapping: you. Often this isn’t done. The difference is that you quoted his sarcasm, while I quoted his reason.

I would contend one can see clearly from his writing, the man’s flaws and temper(ment)… I personally, wouldn’t reduce his flaws to sarcasm. Not to mention the consequences his errors caused. But that’s me.
J:

He was quite clear where he thought scripture came from, and he of course had the right to translate it into German. Following that, Esmer chose to use his translation for his own, so I guess Esmer thought he did a good job.

Error is error, no matter who it’s by, or who supports it…true? I would also contend, that regardless of what he might have thought about his own abilities, ( he thought he was above papal supervision and criticism ) he wasn’t the only one of his day, who could speak/write in proper German. And that’s the problem. He set himself above the pope, and any need for approval by the pope for what he was doing.
J:

As for the divisions, it takes two to tango.

Jon

I would contend, that given his toxic personality which was all over that letter of his, + taking into consideration his total disrespect for papal authority, he would be one lousy Tango partner. :twocents:

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;10330476]I would contend one can see clearly from his writing, the man’s flaws and temper(ment)… I personally, wouldn’t reduce his flaws to sarcasm. Not to mention the consequences his errors caused. But that’s me.

And I accept your opinion as yours, with respect. Whatever his flaws, it is true that we all have them.

Error is error, no matter who it’s by, or who supports it…true? I would also contend, that regardless of what he might have thought about his own abilities, ( he thought he was above papal supervision and criticism ) he wasn’t the only one of his day, who could speak/write in proper German. And that’s the problem. He set himself above the pope, and any need for approval by the pope for what he was doing.

Excommunication set him apart from papal supervision, that’s for sure.

I would contend, that given his toxic personality which was all over that letter of his, + taking into consideration his total disrespect for papal authority, he would be one lousy Tango partner. :twocents:

Oh, the “toxic personality” of one Augustinian friar is small peanuts compared to the corruption of the time. Perhaps had Pope Leo X been a better leader, his tango partner might have improved.

But this is off topic.

Jon

 

[pablope]

And I accept your opinion as yours, with respect. Whatever his flaws, it is true that we all have them.

Perhaps had Pope Leo X been a better leader, his tango partner might have improved.

But this is off topic.

Jon

And vice versa…Luther could have improved Leo X to tango better…and disarmed Leo X, just like what Catherine did to Pope Gregory and Urban.

And even earlier…Paul rebuking Peter for a moral fault…

 

[JonNC]

And vice versa…Luther could have improved Leo X to tango better…and disarmed Leo X, just like what Catherine did to Pope Gregory and Urban.

And even earlier…Paul rebuking Peter for a moral fault…

Not disagreeing regarding Luther’s personality, but clearly there were other issues involved with Catherine of Siena. Let’s face it; Luther was a threat to the revenues that were coming in. I don’t know if Catherine was.

And there is, now, nothing that can be done to solve those issues, except for closer unity today.

Jon