Faith+Sacraments

  • Thread starter Thread starter lanman87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Justification consists in both victory over the death caused by sin and a new participation in grace. - CCC 654

As @Arkansan so beautifully said, sanctifying grace is most vital in meriting justification and increasing in it. The Sacraments were not instituted by Christ for us to passively and solely receive forgiveness of sins through ‘faith alone’, but to also share in the divine life by cooperating with infused, sanctifying grace conferred by the Sacraments. With this sanctifying grace, we can increase our justification before God; this is exactly why Our Lord revealed different levels of glory in Heaven among the Saints.

Liberation from sin is only half of the equation of justification; we must also, through sanctifying grace, actively participate in the newness of life purchased for us by Christ and conferred to us in Holy Baptism - we must feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, and visit those in prison. No Saint has ever been canonized without doing the latter by sanctifying grace.
 
Last edited:
Refer to your last para (I’m on my cellphone). I am good wirh gòod work arise from true faith. It’s a chicken and egg question, but it’s fine.

However, what is your recourse to if you should sin? Or is after having true faith, you will not sin no more? Or if you sin, it’s inconsequential anyway?
 
How do you know this? Can you read his mind? And, forget Philipp Melanchthon, forget his letters - he lived this out in his own life! He renounced his vows, dissolved religious orders, apparently convinced a religious sister to renounce her vows and married her!

He is the first recorded case of a Priest having sex with a nun.

And Catholics are routinely accused of this.

A highly disturbed man who radically reinvents a religion according to his personal needs is no one to follow.

He hated Christ’s Church so vehemently, he hated the Pope so intensely, that he became what he hated - except with zero authority. The fact that others believed and followed him is proof of nothing except human gullibility. Think: JWs and LDS.

Notice that he either did not hate, or conveniently ignored the Orthodox Divine Liturgy - which is nearly 100% identical in content to the Catholic.

So, what was this rebel’s cause?
 
po18guy said:
How do you know this? Can you read his mind?
Click to expand...
I can read more of his writing than one or two out of context quotes. If I’m going to shred his theology, I should at least actually study it enough to understand it.
po18guy said:
And, forget Philipp Melanchthon, forget his letters
Click to expand...
No. Lets not. Martin Luther was a man, and Protestants certainly do not put him on a pedestal. Yet, it has been claimed on this forum by you and @Arkansan that Luther condoned and encouraged sinning without consequence. This is simply not true. You took a quote from him out of context and unfairly used this to create a caricature of his theology and by extension the theologies of all Protestants.

Now, I’m sure you did this innocently and without full knowledge. Now that you know that there is more to Luther’s theology than simply murdering and fornicating a thousand times daily, I’m sure you will in charity refrain from such a simplistic and unfair characterization in the future.

Beyond that, you are more than welcome to contemplate the morality of Luther forsaking his monastic vows to marry a former nun. I don’t think I’ll be joining you in that discussion, but I’m sure it would be educational for everyone reading it.
 
Last edited:
I will not waste irreplaceable time studying the ranting and ravings of a sick man. You don’t think so? Read his responses to those who dared - DARED! - to disagree with him! Erasmus, a peacemaker, was the “very mouth organ of Satan” The Pope was (and still is!) the antichrist. Luther grossly vioated his own bible here - we know that the antichrist is one who denies that Christ has come in the flesh. 1 John 4:1-4

Find a Pope who has done that!

There is not a single one.

Luther and his theology is not to be studied, but prayed for!

Rather than read documented rebellious heretics, why not study the Faith, once for all delivered to the Saints? Fr. Luther radically rejected that faith, being terrorized by persistent and recurring thoughts of his worthlessness in God’s sight. This was a tormented man.

Martin Luther radically overturned Christ’s doctrine, substituting his own doctrine, which agreed with his mental state.

And, please answer about the Orthodox - who also rejected the reformers. Note: NOT a Catholic source.

You still think that reform theology is correct?

OoooooK…

I challenge you to broaden your horizons. Or narrow your focus - your choice.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
I will not waste irreplaceable time studying the ranting and ravings of a sick man. You don’t think so? Read his responses to those who dared - DARED! - to disagree with him! Erasmus, a peacemaker, was the “very mouth organ of Satan” The Pope was (and still is!) the antichrist. Luther grossly vioated his own bible here - we know that the antichrist is one who denies that Christ has come in the flesh. 1 John 4:1-4
Click to expand...
🤨
 
Please excuse me for butting in…

But, I cannot help interjecting and rebut this “context” defense.

Look, if you are finding yourselves unceasingly having to use this “context” argument to attempt to exonerate Luther’s vile, written sentiments, I suggest you appeal to your conscience and ask yourself if you are being fair to the writings of Luther and your interpretations of them. Do not you find it rather odd that nearly every Protestant, whatever the branch, that attempts to defend Martin Luther’s works, uses the exact same defense, i.e. “context”?! I am sorry, but the whole “context” argument only goes so far…

If I were to call one of you a fool (I would never), only to later claim that I was speaking in mere hyperbole, or attempt to justify it later by calling you a wise man, that does not negate or nullify the fact that I still called you a ‘fool’. The same goes for Luther’s vile statements and theological errors. Do you really claim the Catholic Church to be that dense and naive as to not recognize and properly understand the ‘context’ or ‘hyperbole’ of Luther’s works, as to convene an multi-year Ecumenical Council anathematizing his errors (among other reformers) just for fun?!

Do you really thing the Council of Trent simply formulated this canon just for kicks:

“If anyone says that there is no mortal sin except that of unbelief, or that grace once received is not lost through any other sin however grievous and enormous except by that of unbelief, let him be anathema.”

No! When you have a Catholic Priest writing: “No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day”, I do not care what the ‘context’ is or if he was writing in ‘hyperbole’, those words will only confuse and confound the little ones of Christ. And, I find it getting old hearing the same regurgitation of attempting to justify Luther’s glaring doctrinal errors.

You will never observe Catholics having to vindicate the life and works of a Saint by using the “context” argument, at least in the way it is used for Luther. Why? Because they were Saints that maintained docility and humble obedience to Holy, Mother Church. Luther did not; let it go, let him go. You are not Luther. Be yourselves and do what he did not! 🙂

Sorry for the rant, guys. Merry Christmas!
 
JonNC said:
That is, indeed, the Catholic view
Click to expand...
Do you suggest that God works in us against our will? Are baptized Christians marionettes in that God forces his grace down the strings to control our destiny? Is not participation in the life of Christ through grace an act of liberty that manifests a love that is freely given and freely accepted by us, hence the term ‘covenant’ and not bondage.
 
AugustTherese said:
Please excuse me for butting in…

But, I cannot help interjecting and rebut this “context” defense.

Look, if you are finding yourselves unceasingly having to use this “context” argument to attempt to exonerate Luther’s vile, written sentiments, I suggest you appeal to your conscience and ask yourself if you are being fair to the writings of Luther and your interpretations of them. Do not you find it rather odd that nearly every Protestant, whatever the branch, that attempts to defend Martin Luther’s works, uses the exact same defense, i.e. “context”?! I am sorry, but the whole “context” argument only goes so far…
Click to expand...
I’m not defending everything Luther ever said. He said some horrible things about the Jews as I understand it. I won’t defend that. I won’t even defend all of his theological views. Yet, if we are going to use Luther’s writings to either tear down his theology or defend it or whatever we want to do with it, we should at least be fair.

All I did was post longer passages from Luther’s work which directly contradict the conclusions that several Catholics have drawn about his beliefs. Now, why should we accept a couple lines of a letter but throw out everything else he wrote specifically as doctrinal standards for the Lutheran church? We wouldn’t do that when trying to interpret any other primary source. We would look for an interpretation that made sense out of the whole body of an author’s work. Yet for Luther, it’s ok to ignore inconvenient facts for the sake of what–bashing Protestants? I don’t get it.
AugustTherese said:
Do you really thing the Council of Trent simply formulated this canon just for kicks:

“If anyone says that there is no mortal sin except that of unbelief, or that grace once received is not lost through any other sin however grievous and enormous except by that of unbelief, let him be anathema.”
Click to expand...
It was not just a reaction to Luther. By the time Trent was held, the Reformation had taken many forms–including antinomian groups that both Luther and Catholics condemned. In regards to Canon 27, Luther does actually seem to believe that other sins besides unbelief)could lead to a loss of salvation but he sort of places all of these under the umbrella of unbelief due to his views on faith. As cited above, Luther wrote in the Smalcald Articles:
43 It is therefore necessary to know and to teach that when holy people, aside from the fact that they still possess and feel original sin and daily repent and strive against it, fall into open sin (as David fell into adultery, murder, and blasphemy), faith and the Spirit have departed from them.
Click to expand...
Persisting in willful sin is unbelief for Luther. This is why he says that “faith and the Spirit have departed from” those who give themselves over to willful sin in contrast to the faithful who “repent and strive against” sin. Therefore, Canon 27 would only apply to Luther if we ignore his own definition of faith, which is broader and deeper than what others may understand by that term.

Merry Christmas and continued in next post
 
Last edited:
Modern Lutherans still believe the same thing, per LCMS:
Q: Can you lose your salvation and if you can, what do you need to do to regain it again?

A: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod believes and teaches that it is possible for a true believer to fall from faith, as Scripture itself soberly and repeatedly warns us (1 Cor. 10:12; 1 Pet. 5:8; 2 Pet. 3:17; Heb. 2:1-3; 3:12-19; 6:4-8, etc.). Such warnings are intended for Christians who appear to be lacking a right understanding of the seriousness of their sin and of God’s judgment against sin, and who, therefore, are in danger of developing a false and proud “security” based not on God’s grace, but on their own works, self-righteousness, or freedom to “do as they please.”

[Cut]

A person may be restored to faith in the same way he or she came to faith in the first place: by repenting of his or her sin and unbelief and trusting completely in the life, death and resurrection of Christ alone for forgiveness and salvation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
AugustTherese said:
40.png
JonNC:
That is, indeed, the Catholic view
Click to expand...
Do you suggest that God works in us against our will? Are baptized Christians marionettes in that God forces his grace down the strings to control our destiny? Is not participation in the life of Christ through grace an act of liberty that manifests a love that is freely given and freely accepted by us, hence the term ‘covenant’ and not bondage.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree.
Do you not agree that the mere ability to act in participation is solely and completely because of grace?
 
Rather, don’t follow a man who turned Christianity upside down!

You see no basic problem here?

Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail.

Apparently they have…
 
JonNC said:
40.png
AugustTherese:
40.png
JonNC:
That is, indeed, the Catholic view
Click to expand...
Do you suggest that God works in us against our will? Are baptized Christians marionettes in that God forces his grace down the strings to control our destiny? Is not participation in the life of Christ through grace an act of liberty that manifests a love that is freely given and freely accepted by us, hence the term ‘covenant’ and not bondage.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree.
Do you not agree that the mere ability to act in participation is solely and completely because of grace?
Click to expand...
When you say “act”, are you referring to a human act?
If so, are human acts done in freedom or coercion (in relation to responding to God)?

In other words, is God’s grace coercive?

What should we call grace that is un-responded to?
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
Rather, don’t follow a man who turned Christianity upside down!

You see no basic problem here?

Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail.

Apparently they have…
Click to expand...
Please! Take a moment to read what modern Catholic scholars and theologians say about him.
 
goout said:
When you say “act”, are you referring to a human act?

If so, are human acts done in freedom or coercion
(in relation to responding to God)?

In other words, is God’s grace coercive?
Click to expand...
Not in the least.
goout said:
What should we call grace that is un-responded to?
Click to expand...
Grace that is unresponded to. Grace that has been rejected by men.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
Rather, don’t follow a man who turned Christianity upside down!

You see no basic problem here?
Click to expand...
I see a basic problem with rhetorical comments that represent a long ago abandoned polemic about a man 470 years dead. I see a problem with quotes constantly taken out of context. There are lots of things he can legitimately be criticized for. No need to make stuff up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top