Faith Alone???

  • Thread starter Thread starter matthias
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

matthias

Guest
http://www.catholic.org/images/news/letters/v.gifATICAN CITY (CNS) – Even those who spend their lives serving the church must recognize that faith alone will save them, the preacher of the papal household told Pope Benedict XVI and his closest aides…

Article

This just doesn’t sound right to me… Am I missing something? I don’t know how many debates I’ve had in my conversion to the Church over this but I was fairly certain that “faith alone” was an untenable position. What am I missing in that article???
 
If the preacher meant “faith alone” in the commonly understood protestant sense, then that is clearly heresy against the Council of Trent.
Love,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
 
40.png
Jaypeeto4:
If the preacher meant “faith alone” in the commonly understood protestant sense, then that is clearly heresy against the Council of Trent.
Love,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
Yah that’s what I thought too, but even if he used it in some qualified sence in which it is theologically tennable, it is still very imprudent to use such an expression without making it’s qualifications clear. It seams to me that any protestant if not many Catholics would likely read this and say “…??? What? Did the church change it’s teaching…” Which obviously it hasn’t but such statements at the papal level need to be made very carefully lest people be confused.
 
Peace be with you!

This might just be a mistranslation of sola gratia, by grace alone. The translator might have taken sola gratia and sola fide to mean the same thing. Benedict XVI is quite ecumenical, so I doubt he actually meant by faith alone in the sense our Protestant brothers and sisters use it.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Actually, it was NOT Benedict who made the statement about Faith Alone, but the guest preacher.
Love,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
 
Rand Al'Thor:
…This might just be a mistranslation of sola gratia, by grace alone. The translator might have taken sola gratia and sola fide to mean the same thing…
I had the same thought, but if it were a translational problem I would think it would be caught before it makes it to publication. Plus what language would he have been speaking? Probably not latin and so probably not a mistranslation of sola gratia but instead some Italian or German equivelent. Not sure if the potential for confusion and misstranslation would still be as easy in those languages… Anyway it would be nice if the translation problem, if this is in fact the problem, could be fixed so that those reading that article would not be confused.
 
40.png
Jaypeeto4:
Actually, it was NOT Benedict who made the statement about Faith Alone, but the guest preacher.
Love,
Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)
Yes, I caught that. Did it sound as if I supposed it was the Pope?
 
40.png
matthias:
…at the papal level…
Ah. I see. Sorry. I ment at the level in which the Pope is associated in it’s context, not necessarily that it comes from him. This was preached to the pope and thus I described it at the “papal level”. I can see how that would be confusing or ambiguous.
 
40.png
matthias:
Yes, I caught that. Did it sound as if I supposed it was the Pope?
Peace be with you!

No, I just read it wrong (he was referring to my post). Sorry!

In Christ,
Rand
 
cantalamessa.org/en/2005Avvento3.htm

Please check out this site…it is Fr. Cantalamessa’s website. It appears to cotain the entire homily. I did not read the words “faith alone” in this homily. Would appreciate others to check this out and compare with sources that contain the article being referrenced to in this thread.

Peace of Christ

Rita
 
WordMadeFlesh said:

Please check out this site…it is Fr. Cantalamessa’s website. It appears to cotain the entire homily. I did not read the words “faith alone” in this homily. Would appreciate others to check this out and compare with sources that contain the article being referrenced to in this thread.Hi Rita!
You are quite correct in your statement that the term “faith alone” nowhere occurs in the text of that homily and in fact the word “alone” only occurs once.

(For those of you who are not tech savvy, this is easily verified by going to that webpage and then simply hitting “Ctrl f” which is the “find” feature in your browser. )

Let me quote here 2 paragraphs that I think might lay this “controversy”
(which I don’t really think is one) to rest.
When one speaks of faith in St. Paul one thinks spontaneously of the great theme of justification by faith in Christ.
And on this we wish to concentrate our attention, not to outline the umpteenth discussion on the topic, but to receive his consoling message. I was saying in the first meditation that there currently exists a need for kerygmatic preaching, suitable to incite faith where it has never existed, or where it has died. Gratuitous justification by faith in Christ is the heart of this type of preaching, and it is a shame that this is, in turn, practically absent from ordinary preaching in the Church.

In this respect something strange has occurred. To the objections raised by the reformers, the Council of Trent had given a Catholic response, that there is a place for faith and for good works, each one, it was understood, in its place. One is not saved by good works, but one cannot be saved without good works. Nevertheless, from this moment in which the Protestants insisted unilaterally on faith, Catholic preaching and spirituality ended up accepting the nearly exclusive and thankless work of calling to mind the need for good works and of one’s personal contribution to salvation. The result is that the great majority of Catholics have lived entire lives without having ever heard a direct announcement of gratuitous justification by faith, without too many “buts.”(All emphasis above is mine.)

There is no conflict with Catholic belief in this homily, nor heresy. The good Monsignor is simply saying that we must never forget that no matter how faithful we are or what we do after we are converted it is not all our good works that gains us salvation, but the faith in the sacrifice of Christ.

I think he clarifies this beautifully in his final points (# 6) when he says:
  1. Forgetting the past
Continuing with the autobiographical text of Philippians 3, Paul suggests to us the practical idea with which we will conclude our reflection:
“Brothers, I for my part do not consider myself to have taken possession [of perfect maturity]. Just one thing: forgetting the past but straining forward to what lies ahead, I continue my pursuit toward the goal, the prize of God’s upward calling, in Christ Jesus” ([cf.] Philippians 3:13-14).
“Forgetting the past.” What “past”? That of the Pharisee, of what he had said before? No, the past of the apostle, in the Church! Now the “gain” to consider a “loss” is something else: It is precisely having already considered once everything lost to the cause of Christ. It was natural to think: “What courage, this Paul: to abandon such a good career as a rabbi for an obscure sect of Galileans! And what letters he has written! How many trips he undertook! How many churches he founded!”
The Apostle warned confusedly of the mortal danger of putting between himself and Christ “his own righteousness” derived from works – this time the works done by Christ – and he reacted vigorously. “I do not believe,” he said, “that I have reached perfection.” St. Francis of Assisi, in a similar situation, cut short any temptation of self-complacency, saying: “We begin, brothers, to serve the Lord, because until now we have done little or nothing.”[8]
This is the most necessary conversion for those that have followed Christ and have lived serving him in the Church. A conversion altogether special, which does not consist in abandoning evil, but rather, in a certain sense, in abandoning the good! That is, by detaching oneself from all that you have done, repeating to yourself, according to the suggestion of Christ: “We are useless servants; we have done only our duty” (Luke 17:10). And not even, perhaps, the good we should do!
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
matthias:
Yah that’s what I thought too, but even if he used it in some qualified sence in which it is theologically tennable, it is still very imprudent to use such an expression without making it’s qualifications clear. It seams to me that any protestant if not many Catholics would likely read this and say “…??? What? Did the church change it’s teaching…” Which obviously it hasn’t but such statements at the papal level need to be made very carefully lest people be confused.
I think this is one of the ways in which many people (Catholics included) get confused about what the church really teaches and confused about the fact that the Church CANNOT change its teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top