For Orthodox - works and salvation

[mardukm]

In the Eastern Catholicism Forum, an EO member made this statement:

But at the time of the Council of Trent, when the Lutherans were formerly condemned as being a heretical sect, they were already in schism. The schism may have been fresh, but it was certainly already there, as evidenced by the fact that there were no Lutherans there. There are also several anathema’s against the Lutherans from Trent that also reach the Orthodox (such as the anathema against those who don’t believe that works help in salvation).

I admit I was surprised to read from an EO that our works do not contribute to our salvation.

Can one of our EO brethren please explain?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

I was referencing Session 24 canon 6 of Trent which states that it is anathema to not believe that good works increase ones justification. This is contrary from the belief that faith and works go together and that ones faith will be manifest in their works.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

I was referencing Session 24 canon 6 of Trent which states that it is anathema to not believe that good works increase ones justification. This is contrary from the belief that faith and works go together and that ones faith will be manifest in their works.

I’m not quite clear on your position.

Are you saying that works are not necessary for salvation (which is the Lutheran position)?

And I’m not quite clear on your understanding of the Catholic position. Are you saying that the Catholic teaching denies that faith and works go hand in hand? If so, can you please cite a magisterial document which states anything to that effect?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

I think the matter with works that the Orthodox reject from Trent is if Christians who repent from sin but fail to perform their penance they are given go to purgatory. The correct Orthodox view is that works must attend faith or else faith, being alone, will die.

Some Orthodox reject the teaching of the toll-houses after death simply because the teaching speaks of your guardian angel carrying a bag full of the merits attained in life by good works and using it as money to pay off the demons at the toll-houses for other sins that were not repented of. Some Orthodox on this forum have even said as much! Well, the teaching is NOT un-orthodox, merit can be used to pay off a toll-house that is assigned to a sin that the one that died did not repent. The tendency to reject this concept, I think, comes from a prejudice against anything that sounds too Western-minded.

It should be understandable that Protestants who convert to Orthodoxy might like to continue to believe something as close as possible to the fundamentalist Protestant teaching of the eternal security of the believer, as this teaching when believed gives such a believer a great sense of peace. To believe in the eternal security of the believer is to trust only on the merits of Christ and not in any personal merits. I do not believe that this teaching is wrong either. It only becomes wrong when it is taught as it is either this or that and not that there is a way that both can be true. The early Church rejected a book from the canon of scripture known as “The Apocalypse of Peter” because it was thought that it taught universal salvation. The fact is though that 99% of it taught of all the pain and torture that unrepentant sinners will go through after death, but then it concludes that in the end all who believe will be delivered and saved, not all will be delivered and saved, but all who believe will be delivered and saved. So really it taught not universal salvation, but rather that in the end all who believe will be saved. The picture painted by The Apocalypse of Peter really sounds alot like a teaching about purgatory. Of course this is a teaching rejected by the Orthodox AFTER the East-West split. But I personally accept it because I’m convinced such things were “Orthodox” before the East-West split. Not everything that was written, but was not canonized, should be totally rejected because often it speaks of customs or beliefs that were believed and passed down by Holy Tradition.

This issue is not any were near the degree of a problem in the East as it is in the West. The East is far more willing to accept things in terms of them being mysteries of the faith, whereas the West over-rationalizes everything.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I’ve never really understood this question. Here’s the reality: we are all children and servants of a King. As such we are expected to behave in a certain way and we have certain obligations. One of the most important obligations we have as servants is to love and serve our neighbor. That obligation is given to us from the mouth of the Savior himself. If we wish to grow in communion with Him it would behoove us to do everything in our power to fulfill that obligation. I don’t understand what else there is to discuss?

In Christ
Joe

 

[shawn38]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

I’m not quite clear on your position.

Are you saying that works are not necessary for salvation (which is the Lutheran position)?

Are you saying you are justified by your works?

Fruits are a sign of our justification. Works do not justify, but sanctify us.

Matt 7:22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Notice that these people have faith, recognize Jesus as Lord, and performed works. Their justification for entering heaven though was based on their works and not solely on the grace of God through the redemptive work of Christ. All our righteous acts are like filthy rags when compared to the glory of God.

When a Christian is regenerated, immediately they are justified through the redemptive work of Christ. The Christian becomes a new creation in Christ. The Christian’s disdain for sin, their love for Christ, and the desire to glorify God leads a Christian to bear fruit.

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

I’m not quite clear on your position.

Are you saying that works are not necessary for salvation (which is the Lutheran position)?

I’m saying if faith is there, works will be there as well. Works themselves don’t lead to salvation.

And I’m not quite clear on your understanding of the Catholic position. Are you saying that the Catholic teaching denies that faith and works go hand in hand? If so, can you please cite a magisterial document which states anything to that effect?

A canon from Trent isn’t Magisterial? Because I already cited that.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t see anything in Nine_Two’s clarification that contradicts or even differs from the Catholic view as I was taught it. What exactly is the issue here, Mardukm?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

I think the matter with works that the Orthodox reject from Trent is if Christians who repent from sin but fail to perform their penance they are given go to purgatory.

“Works” in the Latin Tradition do not refer to works not perfected in love, nor to works that are in and of themselves salvific apart from the saving work of Christ. A “work” in the Latin Tradition is cooperation with salvific Grace - nothing more, nothing less. We cooperate in the “working out of our salvation” (in St. Paul’s words) through the good works we perform. If we don’t cooperate with the transformative power of Grace here in this life, then God will finish that work in the life hereafter, though our prayers and His Mercy. Latins would call this state Purgatory. Orthodox will generally say this work of Grace occurs “in” Hades. No difference at all, IMO - except for terminology.

The correct Orthodox view is that works must attend faith or else faith, being alone, will die.

That’s my thought, too. But brother Nine_Two stated that this was (according to his interpretation) anathemized by Trent. I asked him for Catholic magisterial documentation for his opinion. I hope he responds.

This issue is not any were near the degree of a problem in the East as it is in the West. The East is far more willing to accept things in terms of them being mysteries of the faith,

I am not aware that this is an issue between East and West. Brother Nine_Two’s surprising comment is the first I ever heard of it.

whereas the West over-rationalizes everything.

I would tend to agree. Though, as a balance, one should note that the Councils themselves could be accused of “over-rationalizing.” I think any time there is a heresy that requires a response from the Church, the mental engine naturally begins to work overtime.

Your other comments get an A+.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

I don’t see anything in Nine_Two’s clarification that contradicts or even differs from the Catholic view as I was taught it. What exactly is the issue here, Mardukm?

If you note the quote I gave from him in the OP, he stated that the EO position was anathematized by Trent.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I’ve never really understood this question. Here’s the reality: we are all children and servants of a King. As such we are expected to behave in a certain way and we have certain obligations. One of the most important obligations we have as servants is to love and serve our neighbor. That obligation is given to us from the mouth of the Savior himself. If we wish to grow in communion with Him it would behoove us to do everything in our power to fulfill that obligation. I don’t understand what else there is to discuss?

 

[dzheremi]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

If you note the quote I gave from him in the OP, he stated that the EO position was anathematized by Trent.

Blessings,
Marduk

I read the original quote differently than you did, I think. I read it as saying that some of the anathemas declared against the Lutherans were also (wrongly) applied to the Orthodox by the Catholics based on a misunderstanding of what the Orthodox believe – not that the Orthodox believe that works do not aid in salvation.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

I’m saying if faith is there, works will be there as well. Works themselves don’t lead to salvation.

Where does Trent say that works “themselves” lead to salvation?

A canon from Trent isn’t Magisterial? Because I already cited that.

I don’t see it. I think you have a different understanding of “works” than the Catholic Church does (and perhaps other Orthodox as well). Maybe that is the crux of the matter. Can you comment on the Catholic definition of “works” that I gave to brother Adrian in my post #9?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m glad I looked this up again, seems I’m a bit confused, It’s canon 24 of session 6, not the other way around.

If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema

That’s pretty explicit, not only do good works increase the “justice received”, but they can’t be looked at as the signs of “Justification”.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother dzheremi,

I read the original quote differently than you did, I think. I read it as saying that some of the anathemas declared against the Lutherans were also (wrongly) applied to the Orthodox by the Catholics based on a misunderstanding of what the Orthodox believe – not that the Orthodox believe that works do not aid in salvation.

That was not brother Nine_Two’s intent, and you can gather that from the context of the original thread - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=519422&page=3

Note especially his post #36.

In any case, there has never been a big difference in the Orthodox and Catholic positions on this matter, and I am not aware of any Catholic source - magisterial, theological, apologetic - that has made an issue of the matter between Catholics and Orthodox.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I’m glad I looked this up again, seems I’m a bit confused, It’s canon 24 of session 6, not the other way around.

That’s pretty explicit, not only do good works increase the “justice received”, but they can’t be looked at as the signs of “Justification”.

Whew! Can we vote this to be the shortest, resolved thread on CAF?

Blessings,
Marduk

EDIT: I just noticed that this last post of mine put the thread into 2 pages. My bad. I have seen other issues resolved in only 1 page. So we won’t get that prize.:crying:

 

[Nine_Two]

Where does Trent say that works “themselves” lead to salvation?

That was a bad paraphrase, to go with the bad reference. However it appears to discount faith, other than perhaps as the initial bit necessary.

I don’t see it. I think you have a different understanding of “works” than the Catholic Church does (and perhaps other Orthodox as well). Maybe that is the crux of the matter. Can you comment on the Catholic definition of “works” that I gave to brother Adrian in my post #9?

Seems like an overly abstract definition when we’re trying to simplify thing. I understand works to be fulfilling the commands Christ gave us. If it is as abstract as your example, maybe I should give up on ever understanding the Catholic view of the world.

 

[Nine_Two]

As an addendum both the Catholic and Lutheran positions seem to make an equation out of it. I’ve been trying to avoid theological debate recently (and mostly unsuccessfully). Looking over my posts I think I’ve been pressing a bit hard on the “faith = works” thing, which is exactly what my issue with all that is. I have a hard time interpreting it as work = faith when it is a denial of the Lutheran faith = work. Regardless in its original context it was only meant as an incidental to a larger point (which i guess is why Mardukm started a new thread).

Anyway, back to trying to avoid real theology for me.

 

[mardukm]

That was a bad paraphrase, to go with the bad reference. However it appears to discount faith, other than perhaps as the initial bit necessary.

You can’t get the whole teaching of Trent on the matter from one canon.

Seems like an overly abstract definition when we’re trying to simplify thing. I understand works to be fulfilling the commands Christ gave us. If it is as abstract as your example, maybe I should give up on ever understanding the Catholic view of the world.

Strange response from an EO. Is not cooperation with Grace the language of “synergy?” Can one truly fulfill Christ’s commands without Grace? “Works” that increase our justification is a supernatural act in the Catholic understanding, not merely following the commandments.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

As an addendum both the Catholic and Lutheran positions seem to make an equation out of it. I’ve been trying to avoid theological debate recently (and mostly unsuccessfully). Looking over my posts I think I’ve been pressing a bit hard on the “faith = works” thing, which is exactly what my issue with all that is. I have a hard time interpreting it as work = faith when it is a denial of the Lutheran faith = work. Regardless in its original context it was only meant as an incidental to a larger point (which i guess is why Mardukm started a new thread).

If you have a hard time grasping that “works” is “an act of cooperation with Grace,” then it is only natural that you would also find it difficult to see that “faith = works.” But I hope you can at least see that the Catholic view finds no difficulty in the concept that faith, as well as any other good work, is a human act of cooperation with Grace.

Blessings,
Marduk