How do Protestants deal with James on faith and works?

[guanophore]

failure to either can get you censured or excommunicated (as was threatened over Easter observance)

Yes, but I am not sure I understand your point. Do you think people should not be excommunicated for acting as stubborn as a donkey with a nail in his head?

Titus 3:10
10 As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,

factious = αἱρετικὸν (heretical)

This is really more “shunning” than excommunicating, but the point is we are not to pretend like factious and persons embracing heresies are in unity when they are not.

As to the text, Peter needed the prayer because he fell the most , save for judas, the worst. He needed restoring more than the others, but yes to lead the others,

I don’t know if “more”, but it does make clear that the Petrine gifts are not dependent upon Peter’s impeccability. Peter had a specific and unique job, and to do it, he needed to fully understand his own weaknesses. They all said they would go to Jerusalem and die with Him, but when it came down to it, they could not.

Romans 14:4 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
4 Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. **

And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.**

God upheld Peter, as He does all the successors of Peter. If not to eternal reward, then at least to preserve His One Holy Bride.

And as has been pointed out the apostles were also delegated by Christ Himself.

Yes, of course, and there are many ministries and delegations. All of them need to get included in the prayer for Peter, though. Unity with Peter is key.

 

[guanophore]

why I think Jesus did not institute in the first place

I think this is why Peter was so appropriate for the office, as his experience humiliated him. He writes about how he is the servant. And the Popes that followed, the first 7 were martryed quickly. It would not be an office anyone would want if one had the mind of humility.

Pope Clement I
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

certainly one had to be first though to use keys ( preach)

They Keys are the keys of the chief steward.

I meant it was difficult to against grain, against CC,for reformers, to say no to leaders.

I am not so sure this is true. People had been wanting to shed the yoke of the CC for centuries. Finally the economic, political, ans social conditions came together to make it successful. I think they were delighted to finally be free!

One would be drawn to safety, in comfort zone, of tradition, not just of church but of society itself, which was intertwined with church…only a a rare breed would speak to the contrary of declared doctrine and practice.

I think it is clear by the speed at which dissent spread that the population was more than ready for this grass fire to be lit.

Do you mean you would have been drawn (to Lutheranism etc…) due to weakness in your Catholic faith, or drawn because of your goodness (if indeed Luther and Wycliffe had righteous message) ?

They did indeed have a righteous message, and the same complaints Luther had, I have to this day. I think I would have been yearning for more purity in the Church. I certainly would have wanted to have Scripture readily at hand, and would have been as provoked as everyone else at the comparison of what I read, and what I observed. My ancestors came here to America with the Pilgrims, and it is easy to understand why.

 

[Edward_H]

Of course later versions would have removed it!

 

[mcq72]

Of course, and this is why the Church needs the gift of infallibility.

Can’t you see this is the final nail in the coffin for any hope of reunification ? It basically says there is nothing the orthodox nor protestants can bring to the table in areas of doctrinal or teaching contention, for it is a mute point…the CC can not err in those matters, she alone carries the true banner infallibly. The only possible motivation then for such discussions is for the first two to acquiesce disputed points of doctrine and teaching to the latter.

Of course some kind of progress can be be made towards working together despite imperfect union, but that has nothing to do with any reform of disputed points, of unifying teaching.

 

[mcq72]

Of course later versions would have removed it!

???

Not the first time retractions are made by a teacher/theologian…

Seems like hey is made either way !

 

[TertiumQuid]

Of course later versions would have removed it!

“Of course” does not follow. Luther left all sorts of controversial stuff in his writings. The “epistle of straw” comments were removed during his lifetime, with his approval.

 

[guanophore]

Can’t you see this is the final nail in the coffin for any hope of reunification ?

Why would it be? This gift is not one of the fundamental problems of the Reformation.

It basically says there is nothing the orthodox nor protestants can bring to the table in areas of doctrinal or teaching contention, for it is a mute point…the CC can not err in those matters, she alone carries the true banner infallibly.

On the contrary, the variety of understandings of the doctrines of Christ is one of the strengths of the Church. There are very different ways of thinking about and describing the same concepts East, West, and Protestant. Just as there have been a recognition of this through theJDDJ, there can be in other areas as well.

There is only one deposit of faith, though we may all experience it differently. Besides, I think you are forgetting that the Gift is for the Church, and all who are in Christ are members of His One Body. We are not different 'bodies" but all members of the same One.

The only possible motivation then for such discussions is for the first two to acquiesce disputed points of doctrine and teaching to the latter.

This is not part of the initiative toward unification. Between East and West, the factors in the split were largely linguistic and cultural. Since that time, the major issue has been the supremacy of the successor of Peter and the development of doctrine. It is not so much that we believe differently, it is that our perceptions of our faith are different.

838

“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

Of course some kind of progress can be be made towards working together despite imperfect union, but that has nothing to do with any reform of disputed points, of unifying teaching.

Unity results from adherence to the Truth. We will be One as we remain in Him, as He is in the Father. All of us have adhered to the Truth as we understand it. Besides, it is His Church, and His Spirit is able to make One out of the two, or the three. The Church has already faced a more difficult divide between Christian and Jew. Honestly, you sound like you really don’t trust that God wants unity, and can bring this about?

 

[mcq72]

Honestly, you sound like you really don’t trust that God wants unity, and can bring this about?

So the CC declares infallibility, making all others contending in error, and then say the others dont want unity? Sounds like your trust in God for unity is to change others but not CC, that all others become aligned with Catholic doctrine.

I do not read you as denouncing her declared infallibility, but rather defending it.

 

[Agathon]

So the CC declares infallibility, making all others contending in error, and then say the others dont want unity?

If the claim is true and others don’t accept it, is it the fault of the Church or the fault of dissenters?

 

[guanophore]

So the CC declares infallibility,

No.

The CC received the promise of Christ that the Church He founded would be led into all Truth.

making all others contending in error

It is not the gift of God that causes people to contend in error.

and then say the others dont want unity?

What I said was that you sound like you really don’t trust that God wants unity, and can bring this about. You asserted that unity cannot happen because of the gift of infallibility. Honestly, this is an absurd idea! If God promises to lead His Church into all Truth, and unity is preserved by adherence to the Truth, then the only thing preventing unity is departure from the One Faith.

Sounds like your trust in God for unity is to change others but not CC, that all others become aligned with Catholic doctrine.

The CC believes that she has the fullness of the faith. So do the Orthodox, and the Protestants, etc. God can produce alignment. We all need to work for unity, as He founded One Church, has One body, and there is only One Faith.

I do not read you as denouncing her declared infallibility, but rather defending it.

Only the accusation that she has taken in unto herself, rather than receiving it as a gift.

 

[lanman87]

If the claim is true and others don’t accept it, is it the fault of the Church or the fault of dissenters?

If the claim is false and others don’t accept it, is it the fault of the Church or the fault of dissenters?

 

[Agathon]

The claim is true.

 

[guanophore]

If the claim is false and others don’t accept it, is it the fault of the Church or the fault of dissenters?

If the claim is false, and others don’t accept it, why would there be any fault?

 

[lanman87]

If the claim is false, and others don’t accept it, why would there be any fault?

Because it causes division.

 

[guanophore]

Because it causes division.

Oh, I see. I think you are saying that the gift God has given to the Church causes division in the Church?

You are saying this because you do not believe God has actually given this gift to the Church, it is a false claim, and people who do not accept it reject those that do accept it, so division results?

 

[mcq72]

You asserted that unity cannot happen because of the gift of infallibility

No. I believe i asserted from the CC point of view, given her declared innerancy, the only way unity can then happen is for Os and Ps to give up points of contention and yield to the CC by God’s workings.

To me that is her declared road to ecumenicalism (unified teaching).

 

[guanophore]

I believe i asserted from the CC point of view, given her declared innerancy, the only way unity can then happen is for Os and Ps to give up points of contention and yield to the CC by God’s workings.

Well, it seems to me that you have a very narrow expectation of God’s workings. This is not how the JDDJ was developed.

To me that is her declared road to ecumenicalism (unified teaching).

It would appear that you have very little acquaintance with the Church’s teaching on ecumenism.

 

[mcq72]

It would appear that you have very little acquaintance with the Church’s teaching on ecumenism.

Well, teaching is one thing, action is another…thank you for sharing the lutheran/catholic dialogue…nice to see anathemas recinded…that is an attitude change, but still no dictrinal change…the acquaintance I have most is here on CAF…and again am being specific not to attitude or tolerance of differing views, but of coming into agreement into one teaching per individual doctrine (although the first two are a good start).

Are you acquainted with any new teaching where the Church is willing to admit an error in teaching, that reformers have pointed out?

 

[guanophore]

Well, teaching is one thing, action is another…

I am not sure what you mean by this. The faithful are required to act within the Teaching.
if they do not, then they are in a rebellious relationship with the leadership appointed by Christ.

hank you for sharing the lutheran/catholic dialogue…nice to see anathemas recinded…that is an attitude change, but still no dictrinal change…

That is the whole point. There was no need for doctrinal change. The Teachings of Christ were whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. Even if members of the Church misrepresent or disregard the Teachings, they are immutable.

Luther was scandalized that the clergy of his day and location were not practicing according to the Teachings of the Apostles. Men are always in need of reform, but the Teachings of Christ do not need reform.

the acquaintance I have most is here on CAF…and again am being specific not to attitude or tolerance of differing views, but of coming into agreement into one teaching per individual doctrine (although the first two are a good start).

It is a sad fact that the majority of Catholics are not well catechized in their faith. Some of them reject or do not embody the Teachings of the Church. I have met a great many Catholics here on CAF and outside that have never read the JDDJ.

The Church has also made progress lifting the mutual anathemas between East and West.

The divisions in the Church have occurred gradually over time, and will take time to heal.

Aanyre you acquainted with any new teaching where the Church is willing to admit an error in teaching, that reformers have pointed out?

No. The Church is willing to admit errors of practice that have been pointed out, but the Teaching is considered belonging to Christ, and therefore, immutable.

 

[Theo520]

I’ve always found the battle over faith vs works to be a battle of strawman arguments.

Protestants believe that if you truely have faith and are saved, there will be ‘works’ that follow. The ‘faith alone’ crowd just consider it secondary and don’t focus on that aspect. I think Catholics imagine them proclaiming faith but not bearing the fruit, in which case they really don’t have faith (and are not saved)

Their strawman for Catholics is a bunch of people without faith but going through the motions and acting like they’ve adopted Christ as their savior.

Personally, I see them as complementary. Works builds faith and visa versa. Even doing works without Faith can help open you up to gaining saving Faith in the future.

I’m deeply curious if anyone else feels this debate is more a battle of strawmen arguments than a striking difference in interpretation.