Justified by Faith Alone cf. James 2:24

[JonNC]

How did we get so off-topic?! :tsktsk::tsktsk:

Me and you, I think.

 

[JonNC]

So, there is no such thing as heresy, schism, and/or apostasy?

Of course there is.

Can an Orthodox priest administer the sacraments, even though he is not in communion with the pope?

 

[James248]

Of course there is.

Can an Orthodox priest administer the sacraments, even though he is not in communion with the pope?

Look in the CCC.

 

[MichaelP3]

THAT is where the disagreement lies.

YUP!

IT surely does!

Care to take a look at my previous posts( Yes Mt 16:18 and so on and then the rest, I hope you got that as well) and that would be an answer to at least some of the concerns. (You may not see it, but I did ask them). I have been here (although lurking) but I do know what to ask.

Anyway…

Do you have anything to ad?

 

[MichaelP3]

Sorry you got that impression, Michael. I guess I did not quite understand your comment.

That is okay.

Do you understand anything I said (But I did say many things) at all?

Okay yes

I said many things related very much to this thread.

I can contribute from my side.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

… A council is called when it is needed? Maybe it wasn’t needed?

:

Hi Michael

Homoesexual “marriage”, female ordination, contraception, pornography …any other modern day issues that arise now. They have no catechism to point to and get definite answers.

I’d say it is needed. Especially when you talk to one EO clergy about contraception and they say it is ok, yet another EO clergy says it is not ok.

 

[James248]

YUP!

IT surely does!

Care to take a look at my previous posts( Yes Mt 16:18 and so on and then the rest, I hope you got that as well) and that would be an answer to at least some of the concerns. (You may not see it, but I did ask them). I have been here (although lurking) but I do know what to ask.

Anyway…

Do you have anything to ad?

Whatever I would have to answer was already covered by August Therese. Though there is one thing.

“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired to sift you(plural), as wheat, but I have prayed for you(singular), that your faith will not fail, and once you have recovered, strengthen your brethren.”

Two things:
Jesus says that Simon and the others would be sifted, but He only prays for Simon…
Jesus says that Simon will strengthen his brethren once he turns back, meaning that he will be a sort of big brother, or even father after His Passion.

 

[AugustTherese]

Of course there is.

Can an Orthodox priest administer the sacraments, even though he is not in communion with the pope?

Yes, but illicitly… and only because the Orthodox priest maintains Apostolic succession while preserving the proper sacramental rite. The reason the Anglican priest’s sacraments (outside of Baptism) are not only illicit but even invalid is because Apostolic succession was broken due to a new rite of ordination that developed within.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Whatever I would have to answer was already covered by August Therese. Though there is one thing.

“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired to sift you(plural), as wheat, but I have prayed for you(singular), that your faith will not fail, and once you have recovered, strengthen your brethren.”

Two things:
Jesus says that Simon and the others would be sifted, but He only prays for Simon…
Jesus says that Simon will strengthen his brethren once he turns back, meaning that he will be a sort of big brother, or even father after His Passion.

Easy to miss the significance of Jesus statement in Luke because protestant bibles sometimes mistranslate it to this:

Luke 22:31-32King James Version (KJV)

31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Instead of what is is supposed to read which is this:

Luke 22:31-32New International Version (NIV)

31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

 

[MichaelP3]

Hi Michael

Homoesexual “marriage”, female ordination, contraception, pornography …any other modern day issues that arise now. They have no catechism to point to and get definite answers.

I’d say it is needed. Especially when you talk to one EO clergy about contraception and they say it is ok, yet another EO clergy says it is not ok.

HI LA

I am not aware of a Catholic council being called on same sex marriages, female priests or even pornography ,I sure you know this and meant something else.

The part on contraception was hardly part of the council. Being very "sort (Short) of part of this

 

[Lenten_ashes]

HI LA

I am not aware of a Catholic council being called on same sex marriages, female priests or even pornography ,I sure you know this and meant something else.

The part on contraception was hardly part of the council. Being very "sort (Short) of part of this

Have you explored the EO’s position on contraception? Different opinions. Not united from within.

A council and official declarations would be helpful. Heck, a CATECHISM on that side would be very helpful for those seeking answers.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, but illicitly… and only because the Orthodox priest maintains Apostolic succession while preserving the proper sacramental rite. The reason the Anglican priest’s sacraments (outside of Baptism) are not only illicit but even invalid is because Apostolic succession was broken due to a new rite of ordination that developed within.

Well, yes, that had always been my understanding of Catholic teaching, my lacking time to confirm it in the CCC notwithstanding. I would suspect that no Orthodox priest or bishop considers his orders illicit, and I know my priest and bishop are certain of their validity.
My point is that the power of the keys exists with those Orthodox bishops, regardless of the Catholic determination of licit or illicit may be. The power of the keys is not limited to the Bishop of Rome, or those in communion with him.

 

[Cathoholic]

JonNC. You said (here) . . . .

Justified by faith alone, but faith is never alone.

I sure hope you are saying “a living faith is never alone” and not merely “faith is never alone”.

Why? Because we just saw St. Paul give an example where faith CAN BE alone. The guy who has faith here in 1st Corinthians 13 has a faith that can move mountains but he may NOT have charity (in some situations).

This is a real faith, but its now a dead faith (it doesn’t profit him anything).

This faith that he has, faith that he is called to ABIDE in, still does not profit him because he is devoid of charity.

And this guy will not gain “Heaven”. He gains “nothing”.

1st CORINTHIANS 13:2b-3,13 2b if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. . . . 13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

And St. Paul DOESN’T SAY . . . “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, I will automatically necessarily have charity too.”

You can have real faith, sin against charity, and your faith will die (it has now become a “dead faith” or “not a lively faith”) but it is still true faith in those cases.

COUNCIL OF TRENT CANON XXVIII If any one saith, that, grace being lost through sin, faith also is always lost with it; or, that the faith which remains, though it be not a lively faith, is not a true faith; or, that he, who has faith without charity, is not a Christian; let him be anathema.

thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

I’m not saying a person can’t sin mortally against FAITH too, he/she can sin against faith. But if someone sins against charity, it doesn’t mean his faith was/is necessarily faulty or untrue. It is now a dead faith (due to his sin against charity or sometimes against hope), but it was/is still a true and authentic faith in some cases.

That’s WHY St. Paul says to “abide” in that faith. But you’ve got to “abide” in hope and charity too.

The Council of Trent elsewhere says the same thing concerning faith not necessarily being lost . . .

**COUNCIL OF TRENT (Decree on Justification Session VI)
CHAPTER XV. **

That, by every mortal sin, grace is lost, but not faith.

In opposition also to the subtle wits of certain men, who, by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained, that the received grace of Justification is lost, not only by infidelity whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost; thus defending the doctrine of the divine law, which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelieving, but the faithful also (who are) fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins; from which, with the help of divine grace, they can refrain, and on account of which they are separated from the grace of Christ.

thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

 

[AugustTherese]

Well, yes, that had always been my understanding of Catholic teaching, my lacking time to confirm it in the CCC notwithstanding. I would suspect that no Orthodox priest or bishop considers his orders illicit, and I know my priest and bishop are certain of their validity.

Not to label anyone and/or undermine anyone’s faith, and not to certainly insinuate, but a schismatic or heretic will most certainly view their sacraments as both valid and licit, otherwise they wouldn’t be what they are (i.e. Orthodox priest/Anglican priest), again, no offense.

My point is that the power of the keys exists with those Orthodox bishops, regardless of the Catholic determination of licit or illicit may be. The power of the keys is not limited to the Bishop of Rome, or those in communion with him.

This is an unsubstantiated claim and it begs the question. Your conclusion, “The power of the keys is not limited to the Bishop of Rome”, which is an unsubstantiated claim, attempts to prove your proposition, “[T]he power of the keys exist with those Orthodox bishops”, to be true. You need to prove beyond a doubt that, “The power of the keys is not limited to the Bishop of Rome”; just stating that without providing evidence is begging the question. I can prove from Tradition, Church history, and Sacred Scripture that, “The power of the keys [is] limited to the Bishop of Rome”; please, give me that opportunity!

Again, not to ascribe anything to you or imply anything, but if the Orthodox is not a schismatic and the Anglican is not a heretic (no offense, just for sake of argument), then who is the schismatic and who is the heretic?

 

[JonNC]

=Cathoholic;14638512]JonNC. You said (here) . . . .

It was in response to a posting I made of Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:6.
**Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through
love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the
kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision
availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit
whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits
faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is
to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents
the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love
towards our fellow-men.
**

I sure hope you are saying “a living faith is never alone” and not merely “faith is never alone”.

Why? Because we just saw St. Paul give an example where faith CAN BE alone. The guy who has faith here in 1st Corinthians 13 has a faith that can move mountains but he may NOT have charity (in some situations).

This is a real faith, but its now a dead faith (it doesn’t profit him anything).

This faith that he has, faith that he is called to ABIDE in, still does not profit him because he is devoid of charity.

And this guy will not gain “Heaven”. He gains “nothing”.

And St. Paul DOESN’T SAY . . . “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, I will automatically necessarily have charity too.”

You can have real faith, sin against charity, and your faith will die (it has now become a “dead faith” or “not a lively faith”) but it is still true faith in those cases.

I think he is saying the same thing.

Jon

 

[AugustTherese]

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through
love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith…

…i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit
whatever, avails before God.

This is a blatant contradiction; “[M]ust perform good works” and “works avail nothing, but faith alone” contradict each other. Luther obviously wants to have his cake and eat it too.

 

[JonNC]

This is a blatant contradiction; “[M]ust perform good works” and “works avail nothing, but faith alone” contradict each other. Luther obviously wants to have his cake and eat it too.

So, how is Christ’s command a contradiction? He calls on us the regenerate to care for the least of His children. Earlier we agreed on the words of the JDDJ, which say the same thing.
And Luther, at the end, repeats Christ’s evaluation of the first and great commandment, and the second which is like it. Love the lord you God. Love your neighbor.

No contradiction at all.

 

[AugustTherese]

So, how is Christ’s command a contradiction? He calls on us the regenerate to care for the least of His children. Earlier we agreed on the words of the JDDJ, which say the same thing.
And Luther, at the end, repeats Christ’s evaluation of the first and great commandment, and the second which is like it. Love the lord you God. Love your neighbor.

No contradiction at all.

Show me where the JDDJ states, “works avail nothing”.

 

[JonNC]

Show me where the JDDJ states, “works avail nothing”.

Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.[11]

Does this say something contrary to the words Luther says? Seems to me the same thing. Justification is the work of God in us, that leads and calls us to charity, to help and serve our fellow man.

 

[AugustTherese]

Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.[11]

Does this say something contrary to the words Luther says? Seems to me the same thing. Justification is the work of God in us, that leads and calls us to charity, to help and serve our fellow man.

Yes, it absolutely does! Not only does it not state, “*n faith [alone]”, but it also does **not *** say, “works avail nothing”. This statement from the JDDJ explicitly states that initial justification is, “By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part” (cf. Eph. 2:8,9, Titus 3:5) and that proceeding justification , “[W]hile equipping and calling us to good works” (cf. Jame 2:24, Eph. 2:10), is just as vital to our salvation. “[W]hile equipping and calling us to good works” AND “By grace alone, in faith”, both being in the realm of justification. Luther believed that “works avail nothing”, even after initial justification