How do Protestants deal with James on faith and works?

[SnowRose]

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.

In which case, ecumenism is pretty pointless.

But to be generous, some of the Teachings of the high middle ages that the reformers protested against, has been withdrawn and thus the Teaching is still immutable to you.
(I naturally don’t agree with this - I think our human understanding of the immutable Word can change over time, with learning and study and the discovery of contemporary texts - this is why ecumenism is hard)

 

[JonNC]

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

I think there is a mixture of straw man arguments and honest, explicit differences of beliefs.
It is a straw man for a Catholic to claim that Protestants (that word again) believe works play no role. Obviously they do. They are the call and command of Christ that we love our neighbors.

It is a straw man when non Catholics claim that Catholics practice works righteousness. Catholics not only believe that justification comes by grace through faith, but that goods works, too, are influenced by grace.

It is not a straw man, but an honest difference how we view merit, and the like.

 

[guanophore]

In which case, ecumenism is pretty pointless.

I don’t see why. Those from whom we are separated also believe that the Teachings of Jesus are immutable.

But to be generous, some of the Teachings of the high middle ages that the reformers protested against, has been withdrawn and thus the Teaching is still immutable to you.

The practices/abuses were corrected, and dialogue has taken place to clear up the misunderstandings about what the Church believes and teaches.

I think our human understanding of the immutable Word can change over time, with learning and study and the discovery of contemporary texts

Yes. It is our understanding that develops.

 

[SnowRose]

And you don’t see that developing understanding as contrary to infallability?

I walked for a long time in God’s light outside Church, learning from other traditions. Breathing patterns and emptying your mind, psychology, ancient history, reading faith traditions not my own before satedly and comforted returning.
If I learnt one thing, no human is infallable. We are all sinners and saints, just doing the best we can with grace and mercy.

You do you. I’m Lutheran, and papal infallability is one of the biggies in ever reuniting the lower case catholic/universal church.

 

[guanophore]

And you don’t see that developing understanding as contrary to infallability?

On the contrary, I have personal experience having my understanding developed in the light of infallibility.

I walked for a long time in God’s light outside Church, learning from other traditions.

It may have seemed that way to you, but it is not the case. There is only One Church, and all who belong to Christ are members of it. Not all are visible members of the Church, but all God’s light and learning that is within these ecclesial communities emanates from the One Faith founded by Christ.

I, too, sojourned among my separated brethren for over two decades. I had a great deal of good spiritual formation and learned from them.

If I learnt one thing, no human is infallable. We are all sinners and saints, just doing the best we can with grace and mercy.

We are certainly in agreement on this point. The gift of infallibility does not apply to a “human” but to the Church. It does not make a person (including a Pope) impeccable, either. But “doing the best we can” as humans is not sufficient for Jesus, who wants to lead his Church into “all Truth”. Therefore He placed His Spirit in the Church in such a way as to provide infallible guidance to the faithful, so we won’t get lost.

 

[SnowRose]

We disagree thoroughly on what constitutes the Church. We disagree to a lesser degree on if the church-made-up-of-fallible-men could ever speak infallibly.

Lets leave it or take it to pm. You are not going to convince me on this and I didn’t join CAF to cause trouble, so I’m not even attempting to convince you.

 

[guanophore]

We disagree thoroughly on what constitutes the Church.

Perhaps you could clarify this?

We disagree to a lesser degree on if the church-made-up-of-fallible-men could ever speak infallibly.

Do you believe that the Holy Scriptures are inspired and inerrant?

You are not going to convince me on this and I didn’t join CAF to cause trouble,

Not going to convince you about what? I didn’t think you were remotely “causing trouble”.

 

[SnowRose]

Do you believe that the Holy Scriptures are inspired and inerrant?

Yes. But I do not believe our current understanding of Scripture is final.

 

[guanophore]

Yes. But I do not believe our current understanding of Scripture is final.

I am certainly glad to hear that, since there is so much we all still have to learn from what is written.

Could you agree that the writers of the Scriptures were protected with infallibility while writing?

2 Peter 1:21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

This is how we understand infallibility. When men are moved by the HS and speak from God, as happened when the Scriptures were penned. It also happens in Councils, from the first Council in Jerusalem until today.

Acts 15:28 “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:”

These decisions are considered infallible because they are made along with the Holy Spirit, who cannot err.

How do you define “church”?

 

[SnowRose]

You really seriously don’t understand editing, psychology, politics and ancient history, then?

Since I think it’s rude to laugh in your face, I won’t.

 

[guanophore]

You really seriously don’t understand editing, psychology, politics and ancient history, then?

I must have missed something. What does this have to do with learning more from Scripture?

And what does it have to do with how you define “church”?

Since I think it’s rude to laugh in your face, I won’t.

Is this what you meant by “getting into trouble”? Do all attempts to dialogue with you result in putting down the person who is not understanding you?

 

[SnowRose]

Very well.
Several of my inqueries into Catholicism have been met by a fairly rude or ’just cross the Tiber’ response.

I will not answer you further.

 

[Theo520]

Several of my inqueries into Catholicism have been met by a fairly rude or ’just cross the Tiber’ response.

I expect you have a much deeper understanding of scripture and theology than the average Catholic, no insult meant to any party. Some people just accept and live their faith. They may have been born into it, not logically convinced. They aren’t equipped to convert you with debate

 

[mcq72]

But “doing the best we can” as humans is not sufficient for Jesus, who wants to lead his Church into “all Truth”. Therefore He placed His Spirit in the Church in such a way as to provide infallible guidance to the faithful, so we won’t get lost.

While this guidance was not explicit gifting to the church (was for apostles and implied for sucessors and cerainly not exclusive towards Catholics), your sentiments are very well worded, and have been understood since the beginning of the church.

What is new, what is coined and claimed peculiarly only by CC, even decreed as infallible, is that she is infallible in matters of faith and morals

Obviously there is nothing explicit in Writ that the Catholic Curch will follow perfect guidance by the Spirit perfectly (on faith and morals), and therefore rests on Tradition, and that being made a capital T by same said CC.(as you see weakness in our splintering, I see weakness at the appearance of self serving authority doctrines :head bishop in Rome,Tradition,infallibility)

So what is missing in your otherwise admirable description of the textual intent, is that the adherence to that perfect guidance is not guaranteed.

What is guaranteed is perfect guidance.

What is not guaranteed is perfect adherence simply because you are recipient of guidance thru an office, and that of only one church, excluding others (O’s and some P’s also with valid apostolic succession).

It used to be early on to cite apostolic authority, then writ authority, then council authority, then bishop of rome authority, then “tradition” authority, and now finally, the latter bishop infallible in matters of faith and morals.

So I can understand the history of frustration of some O’s and P’s who try to argue a specific understanding on a particular point of contention with CC, citing writ , councils even small “t” tradition.

Once those universal authorities have been exhausted in the discussion (writ, councils, fathers), it feels as though the seat of Peter, head bishop/pope, was offered as trump card, and much later, the infallibility of said office (on faith/morals).

I feel the Spirit offers no trump card, is not a respector of position espousers save those that espouse His own view. Otherwise easily sets apart those thru whom the Spirit may bring some light on a matter (making the pope the final arbriter of whom the Spirit has enlightened)

Understand some will fall back on the stumbling 30,000 denoms, therefore how could they possibly fully yield to the Spirit who guides perfectly. I can only use same rebuttals made by catholics when facing their problems, that it is all by grace, and that of course all men are in process of being made to conform, that truth is still truth, even if held by imperfect humans.

 

[jdavani]

Is it true that Catholics and lutherans share the same position on faith alone

 

[guanophore]

While this guidance was not explicit gifting to the church

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

(was for apostles and implied for sucessors and cerainly not exclusive towards Catholics),

Yes, the Apostles and prophets are the foundation stones of the Church. The Bishops who took over the Apostolic duties also needed to be protected, since none of them are impeccable either!

Jesus only founded One Church, He only has One Body, and there is only One Faith.

What is new, what is coined and claimed peculiarly only by CC, even decreed as infallible, is that she is infallible in matters of faith and morals

The statement may be new, but the idea is not. In fact, this is a concept that we share with the Orthodox, who believe that the Latin Church has departed from the One Faith!

Obviously there is nothing explicit in Writ that the Catholic Curch will follow perfect guidance by the Spirit perfectly (on faith and morals)

Well we read it differently, don’t we?

and therefore rests on Tradition, and that being made a capital T by same said CC.(as you see weakness in our splintering, I see weakness at the appearance of self serving authority doctrines :head bishop in Rome,Tradition,infallibility)

Yes, I understand that. But this does not explain how the Orthodox have the same belief, getting it from the same sources. The Apostolic Churches (East and West) both read the Scriptures through the lens of the Sacred Tradition (the One Faith that was committed once for all to the Saints). This is why we understand what is written differently.

So what is missing in your otherwise admirable description of the textual intent, is that the adherence to that perfect guidance is not guaranteed.

It is certainly not guaranteed for every cleric at every level, but the promise has very specific conditions that must be met, like many other promises in Scripture. So people can make mistakes, and misunderstand, and fall into carnal motives, etc. But despite all that, Jesus preserves His teaching.

What is guaranteed is perfect guidance.

For the Church, and for the Protection of the Teaching, not the people. The members of the Church can only benefit from the gift to the extent that they are in unity with the Teaching of Jesus.

Not everyone follows His perfect guidance.

 

[guanophore]

What is not guaranteed is perfect adherence simply because you are recipient of guidance thru an office, and that of only one church, excluding others (O’s and some P’s also with valid apostolic succession).

Yes, this is true. The Pope is not infallible because he is Pope, and we need not belabor here all the failures and frailties of the Popes over the centuries.

No one who belongs to Christ is excluded from his One Body, the Church. Therefore the gift of infallibility can be of benefit to all, as much as they adhere to his Teachings.

So I can understand the history of frustration of some O’s and P’s who try to argue a specific understanding on a particular point of contention with CC, citing writ , councils even small “t” tradition.

As do I.

We have been fortunate in the last century to be blessed with holy and humble popes, and much ground has been gained by them refusing the concept of “supremacy”. Pope Francis even had them put the “papal crown” into storage, and has refused to wear the fancy garb. These are small but important steps in reversing the abuse of power.

Once those universal authorities have been exhausted in the discussion (writ, councils, fathers), it feels as though the seat of Peter, head bishop/pope, was offered as trump card, and much later, the infallibility of said office (on faith/morals).

Perhaps, but I disagree that all the discussion has been exhausted. In fact, the vast majority of our separations occurred as a result of a LACK of discussion. If Pope Leo XII had taken Luther seriously, it would not have required 500 years to develop the JDDJ..

If the Eastern and Latin Patriarchs had been in communication, the schism of 1050 could have been prevented. The solution is in listening and understanding one another, and it is most likely we will find we have much more in common than not.

I can only use same rebuttals made by catholics when facing their problems, that it is all by grace, and that of course all men are in process of being made to conform, that truth is still truth, even if held by imperfect humans.

Indeed!

 

[mcq72]

The statement may be new, but the idea is not. In fact, this is a concept that we share with the Orthodox, who believe that the Latin Church has departed from the One Faith!

correct and one of the reasons some church leaders admonished the pope not to make such a decree…that it was already a tradition, understood…did not need to formalize the decree…certainly not a bridge to “others”

 

[guanophore]

correct and one of the reasons some church leaders admonished the pope not to make such a decree…that it was already a tradition, understood…did not need to formalize the decree…certainly not a bridge to “others”

Yes. I have the same issue with Mary as “Mediatrix of all Graces”. Is it necessary to create stumbling blocks? It seems to me that Catholics who have a devotion to Mary have plenty of reasons as it is.

 

[mcq72]

Perhaps, but I disagree that all the discussion has been exhausted. In fact, the vast majority of our separations occurred as a result of a LACK of discussion. If Pope Leo XII had taken Luther seriously, it would not have required 500 years to develop the JDDJ…

If the Eastern and Latin Patriarchs had been in communication, the schism of 1050 could have been prevented. The solution is in listening and understanding one another, and it is most likely we will find we have much more in common than not.

Well, sometimes “communication” is overrated. That out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, or does not speak. We can not underestimate the power, cultural, political underpinnings of the “conversations”. Easier to speak or even compromise a bit now when the ramifications have changed, even seems endearing now.