C
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
How do you explain away the statement of James that we are justified by works, not by faith alone?
Yes, I agree that “for” is a world of difference from “because of”. Working “out” one’s salvation emanates from the work of the HS within, causing us to will and to do His good pleasure. In contrast, many are “working on” their salvation - an ego based as opposed t grace based method (Pelagian).
Are you saying that doing the works that God has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them does NOT keep us in right relationship with God?
I don’t see that any good works can “continue to wash us of sin”, except confession. I do not think of participation in sacramental grace as a “work” in comparison to the other ergos hagios that are commanded of us.
Accessing Sacramental grace is, as Jesus says, “the work of God”, where we place our faith in his grace and receive what He has given us in his mercy.
G
guanophore
Guest
Scripture does not specify, or separate the two.
There are things we can do, and things we can avoid, that enable us to inherit the Kingdom more effectively, but that does not mean we 'earn it". The fact that works are involved does not make it “works based”. The basis of inheriting the Kingdom is grace, accessed through faith. That faith is a faith that works.
Though for some people, acting in love first can bring them into saving grace.
I agree with your point, though it is also true that good works do increase grace.
To the one who has, more will be given.
B
benhur
Guest
Merit grace is an oxymoron. it is not “empty hands”.
C
clem456
Guest
Merit grace is an oxymoron. it is not “empty hands”.
Maybe it would be good to re-read the passage you quoted.
B
Butzi
Guest
Because of my own experience in regards to this particular issue AFTER I became Catholic, I would say a lack of universal consensus on the teaching of papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility, even among Roman rite clergy after the break with the East and up to Vatican I. In addition, the circumstances in which it was “developed” and the examples of ex cathedra actions of Roman pontiffs that were then reversed by later pontiff’s, and in some cases, several times. I would add that in my experience, I have talked to a number of individuals that did not convert to Catholicism because of Vatican II and liturgical experiences after the implementation of the mass of Paul VI. Many of them subsequently converted to Orthodoxy. To my mind, and many others I’ve met, there is an awareness that the Roman church after the 1960’s was a break with the Rome of the past, particularly in regards to Ecclesiology and the practice of praying with non Catholics when this had been expressly forbidden infallibly by past popes and councils. For someone looking into these issues before converting, they can be/are deal breakers, IMO.
C
clem456
Guest
Merit grace is an oxymoron. it is not “empty hands”.
I don’t understand why we have the absurd debate about faith, grace, and works, as if they are separated from one another, or as if any of this originates in man himself. The Church has always been clear from the beginning that Christ is the source and summit of all things. Yet we have free will to cooperate in that relationship. It’s a relationship (covenant), not a contract. God gives us all first, we return that love with free will.
G
guanophore
Guest
Merit grace is an oxymoron. it is not “empty hands”.
You have misunderstood the meaning on several levels Ben.
First, it might assist your sensibilities to understand “merit” in this context can also be rendered “worthy”. We are to do deeds that befit repentance, and in doing those good deeds, we open ourselves to more grace, and cooperate with the working out of our salvation. This is no “by” ourselves, but " for" ourselves, for He is at work within us to will and to do…
G
guanophore
Guest
Can you give an example? There have been so few ex cathedra statements, and I am not aware of any of them being reversed.
It was quite tragic. It was an occasion for me to leave the Church too for many years.
There was no “break with Rome”, but certainly updates in ecclesiology and practices, as was fitting.
I don’t know what you mean by “expressely forbidden infallibly”. Disciplines like these are not the same as doctrines, and can be changed. Disciplines are not “infallible”.
They can, but in your case they seem to be more of an occasion for misunderstanding.
G
guanophore
Guest
We have it as the fruit of the Reformation. The Reformers believed that the CC was teaching salvation by works, so went overboard in trying to “correct” this perception. In doing so, they found it expedient to “separate” the parts of salvation from one another, and now accuse Catholics of “conflating” them. It reminds me of how we are also accused of "adding’ books to the Bible.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi Butzi and welcome.
Certainly, Vatican I tells us that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but how do you know that there have been any ex cathedra statements? Vatican I never claimed that there have been.
Forgive my slight rhetorical flourish in the last paragraph. Catholics generally agree that there have been ex cathedra statements (in fact , I’d be hard pressed to find a source that numbers fewer than two) but there is certainly no consensus on how many there have been.
F
friardchips
Guest
Can you be more specific please? What is unclear?
It is natural for people to sometimes find it hard to change or let go - priests are people also! I would find it more distressing if people didn’t want to hold on a bit to what they had sometimes because that shows a real love but it is a duty for all, for the sake of respecting the succession of Popes in line with St. Peter, to eventually settle down and say: “Nevertheless, let it be as you, not I, would have it”.
Development is good. A response to the needs of the time and room for learning is absolutely necessary and for growth in understanding. I would feel sorry for any religion that lives in say, the 1800’s, for ever!
Life moves forward. The Church develops as the revelation in Scripture - Christ - is realized over time. Popes guide the Church according to their times with a view to protecting the Truth in and the holiness of the Church. It is God who remains constant! Maybe one has to be a bit forgiving in one’s understanding.Vatican II was a blessing and remains to be so! And if that is a reason to play games by jumping religions based on a shopping concept for what suits their own supposed likes and dislikes rather than what is simply good and true then they seriously need to go back and rediscover what faith is all about. Faith is a challenge not a back rub!
Who are the ‘many’?
A good move forward then. Great stuff!
Btw…God doesn’t do ‘deals’.
B
benhur
Guest
Yes understand “merit” as to be worthy. Also understand “grace” as unmerited favor. Hence “oxymoron”.
Also understand your good point of “growing”, that is, one work leading to another, even bigger works /responsibilities, the works we were predestined to do since before the foundation of the world. A bit like David first killing a lion and bear, before Goliath. The reverse also happens . Each of Peter’s three denials increased in passion…But thanks, thinking on your point.
C
clem456
Guest
The catechism explains it best. Merit is not really “worthiness”, in fact worthy might be the least worthy synonym.
You are debating what the Church teaches outside the context of what it actually teaches, and so that runs around in circles.
If you read the catechism passages, you will see how the Church uses the word merit, and I would bet it is not far from the way you see it, judging by the objection you have.
But there is really not much anyone can add, the passage is pretty straightforward.
B
benhur
Guest
Perhaps. It may also be true the reformation is the fruit maybe of some teaching but certainly much practice by Catholics,including Luther as a Catholic, of salvation by works. Certainly is was a counter, and the reformers were certainly not punching only air. Most were very well informed to just what the Church was teaching and doing. Were they overreacting ? Some P’s may say yes, others may say not enough. Nothing is done in a vacuum.
P
pablope
Guest
Protestantism has some good trees…but had not seen the full flowering of its fruits without the Catholic Church…ignatiusinsight.com/features/mbrumley_bouyer1_nov04.asp
Why Catholicism Makes Protestantism Tick: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation | Mark Brumley
*Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work–for Protestantism’s principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.
From Bouyer’s conclusion we can infer at least two things. First, Protestantism can’t be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the “full flowering of the principles of the Reformation”? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles. It’s these two points, as Bouyer articulates them, I would like to consider here. *
F
friardchips
Guest
There should be a sensitivity here as to how we term ‘worthy / merit’. If people are not open to grace then maybe this can slow the flow of grace inwards, maybe it can slow it down, or maybe majorly delays the grace reaching the areas of our hearts and minds that need healing, because God asks us to love Him, with our whole heart and mind! This is why love with God is a ‘relationship’, as a poster said earlier. But it may not be that the grace stops flowing but instead that we cease to recognise and respond to the peace of Christ that is in us already. Our guilt, our imperfection, unless we own up to it, as a poster said earlier, can allow pride to become a wall between God’s love and our recognition and reciprocation of His love.
The other thing here, is that as Christians when we can identify with: “when I am weak, then I am strong”, and the more humble we are, the greater God rewards with fruit, at His discretion. But you said something wise earlier: ‘empty hands’! I like that. We go to God with ‘empty hands’. This is true. So to put it this way, I would say that in recognising our utter unworthiness before the Almighty God, our only offering that is ‘worthy’ of, or that ‘merits’ grace, is our “thank you”, in sheer relief that everything good IS God. Eternal reassurance! He gives, He taketh away (guides with grace), He consoles, He nudges, He provides all we need. All we can do is say: “thank you!”. And the more we go to Him saying “only God is good”, the ‘emptier’ our hands are and the more He can put into those hands His good things. It is kind of akin to living with a prayerful interior, on one’s knees in mind and heart, even though not physically always on our knees.
Never thought about that as an insight before!
Nice!
B
Butzi
Guest
Can you be more specific please? What is unclear?
**I don’t think I said anything was unclear. What I said (or was trying to say) is that there was certainly not universal agreement about the doctrine of papal infallibility amongst Roman Catholics. For example, Torquemada, the head inquisitor of the Church and great theologian, did not believe in papal infallibility. **
It is natural for people to sometimes find it hard to change or let go - priests are people also! I would find it more distressing if people didn’t want to hold on a bit to what they had sometimes because that shows a real love but it is a duty for all, for the sake of respecting the succession of Popes in line with St. Peter, to eventually settle down and say: “Nevertheless, let it be as you, not I, would have it”.
Development is good. A response to the needs of the time and room for learning is absolutely necessary and for growth in understanding. I would feel sorry for any religion that lives in say, the 1800’s, for ever!
Understanding a prior teaching more deeply is certainly within the realm acceptability. Refutation of prior teaching is problematic, to put it mildly.
Vatican II was a blessing and remains to be so! And if that is a reason to play games by jumping religions based on a shopping concept for what suits their own supposed likes and dislikes rather than what is simply good and true then they seriously need to go back and rediscover what faith is all about. Faith is a challenge not a back rub!
“In certain circumstances, it is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics join in prayer with their separated brethren.”-Unitatis Redintegratio
Now, compare this with:
“If any clergyman or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meetings of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of Communion.” III Council of Constantinople
"Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement all who in any way lay claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is only one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from her."Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
What interesting to note is that Pius XI stated in the same document that doing the above as “abandonment of the Divinely revealed religion.”
Praying in public with non Catholics has been part and parcel of the post Vatican II clergy, including all of the popes. JPII stated that praying in this way was called for by VII. This certainly looks to be a rupture with prior magisterial teaching to me.
Who are the ‘many’?
A good move forward then. Great stuff!
Btw…God doesn’t do ‘deals’.
Sure He does. They are called covenants.
B
benhur
Guest
Thank you. It is hard to argue against " you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work" when CC says the apostles were , and the bible itself is “Catholic”
…This reminds me of the healed blind man in front of the Sanhedrin, demanding an explanation of who healed him. The blind man finally says , “all I know is that I was blind and now I see, and Jesus must have Godly authority.”
So it is that Protestantism for many (x)- Catholics actually makes Catholic seeds, principles flower. Tough to say then that Protestantism is “unnecessary” then. Kind of like the Sanhedrin saying Jesus was unnecessary for the blind man because he should have availed himself fully of the methods of purification, healing , miracles already present within Judaism.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
This ^
And fear of drinking and eating judgement by partaking of the Eucharist with the knowledge that there is no assent to the doctrines of the Church.
- Status