Knee jerk response to faith alone

[Brian_Culliton]

Im not sure what you mean by this. The Church simply says that missing Mass on Sunday should not be taken lightly - to do so is a serious sin. Do you consider that admonition an attempt to define a person’s heart?

Yes, because as we discussed in this thread the Catholic Church considers it a mortal sin.

I don’t labor under the delusion that explicit Scriptural support is required for the Church to declare Sunday a day of obligation. The concept should not contradict Scripture, however.

Then where does it come from?

Sunday is a day of rest from labor, to gather for celebrating the Lord’s day and for practicing Christian virtues. It leaves a significant amount of leeway, but intentionally not gathering with others and not celebrating the Lord’s Supper is a no no.

No one here has been able to show why it is a grave sin not to meet on Sunday other than pointing to Hebrews 10. But Hebrews 10 makes no command to meet on the Lord’s day, nor does it list the Lord’s supper as a reason to not forsake assembling. The reasons given are: to provoke one another unto love and good works, and to exhort one another.

Refusing to meet on the day the Church establishes as the Lords day would be disobedient and contrary to the bible.

Again, where in the Bible does it say we must meet on the Lord’s day? Hebrews 10 doesn’t say that.

Does your bible say that you are to determine your own rules of practicing the faith? I’d like to see that verse…

The Bible doesn’t give anyone the right to determine rules and laws regarding the practice of the faith. Paul said to the church in Rome: “One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God” (14:5-6).

And to the Colossians he said, “And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.” (2:13-17)

 

[Cat_Herder]

No one here has been able to show why it is a grave sin not to meet on Sunday other than pointing to Hebrews 10.

I did.

Again, where in the Bible does it say we must meet on the Lord’s day? Hebrews 10 doesn’t say that.

If you want to know how a church should ACT, read the book of… Well, you could just read my post. But seriously, read Acts. All the way through. And then decide for yourself if Paul was as Protestant as you make him out to be.

The Bible doesn’t give anyone the right to determine rules and laws regarding the practice of the faith.

Matthew 18.17:
If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector.

Yes, the Bible ALSO has Paul’s appeals to individual conscience. But I’m sure you are not asserting that Paul’s words have authority and Christ’s do not.

 

[JonNC]

But in that verse, St. Paul is making, keeping the Commandments a prerequisite for Baptism.

The clarion call has always been, “Repent and be Baptized”. What did you think it meant to “repent”?

Just to be clear, because I think we agree but from different perspectives.

Adults who come to (initial) justification prior to Baptism, do so by the hearing of the word, and it is by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by their own acts. Participation in preparation for first Baptism is a response to Grace, and a siginificant part of that response is obedience to His commands. Correct?

Jon

 

[De_Maria]

Just to be clear, because I think we agree but from different perspectives.

Adults who come to (initial) justification prior to Baptism, do so by the hearing of the word, and it is by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by their own acts.

Correct.

Participation in preparation for first Baptism is a response to Grace,

Is that response a work or not?

and a siginificant part of that response is obedience to His commands.

Do you mean “commandments”?

Correct?

If you mean “commandments”, I’d be forced to agree. And this is still before Baptism, agreed?

Jon

De Maria

 

[JoeT777]

While we believe that justification is monergistic - God brings us to justification by grace through faith, and not by any works we may do, sanctification is in some ways synergistic, we respond to grace by obeying His commands, and working to conform our lives to Him.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t have a Tradition of grace alone nor does it have the distinctly Protestant traditions of salvation through scripture alone, salvation by grace alone, salvation through Christ alone, or salvation through God’s grace alone. An Apostolic faith holds that all graces of faith emanate from God, and with few exceptions, require our cooperation. That cooperation need only be as little as taking possession of God’s graces. While God can offer gratuitous graces, like any gift, the beneficiary must take possession, be capable of identifying the gifts attributes, and know how the operation of the gift. The strength or weakness of any virtue signifies the quality of our resilience in habitually seeking of God’s good. Thus we find the First Vatican Council (III, 3) explains, “faith is a supernatural virtue by which we with the inspiration and assistance of God’s grace, believe those things to be true which He has revealed". Our cooperation with faith is a work accepting, operating, and seeking God’s graces i.e., synergism. It takes acceptance of and cooperation with God’s grace of Truth and salvation to become adopted sons of God. When we view Scripture, we find very few cases of God to striking us dumb with an irresistible saving faith, a monergistic faith – God’s robots.

God’s grace of faith is a supernatural gift for salvation. The grace of faith is a benevolent gift or an unwarranted gratuitous gift. Sanctifying grace on the other hand prepares for justification in that it predisposes one to holiness. In my opinion just like any gift, there is an effort to reach out on the part of the benefactor, and an act of cooperation in the receipt of the gift; it takes two individuals, two distinct wills; one giving the other receiving (a requitement).

In my opinion there is a synergism between God and man when sanctifying graces are conferred; the free human will and the will of God (the Holy Spirit) work together to bring about spiritual regeneration or salvation. [cf. Trent, Sixth Session, Cannon IV] The Lutheran view would reject any type of cooperation with the concept of “once saved always saved,” and is certitude of justification. The Lutheran views man as totally depraved and as such saving graces must be forced on man. Luther rejects that there is freewill. Similarly Calvin’s views of a fiduciary faith which denies that man can ever be holy, a faith that merely covers sin. Catholics however believe in a justification through penance and good works and a sacrament that actually removes sin.

Any subtle deviation denies the two natures of Christ, man and God; faith and works. Christ may have died for our sins, (an act of God’s mercy), but he lived along with his mother and disciples not only to hear or speak the word of God, but to “do it” – unquestionably a “work” as defined in most Protestant parlance. (cf Luke 8:21). Christ not only lived the old covenant, he was marked with a work-faith synergy that “worked” internally and externally. The word of God was grafted into his being as a Jew. Was not Christ’s crucifixion a “work” in the spirit of Yom Kippur, atonement for our sins? Forgiving sins was a unique concept hitherto unknown to the Jewish faith. Was it not Christ who lived the Jewish High Holydays of the Sukkuot (Tabernacles)? Was it not a “work” when Jesus transfigured before Peter, John and James. Was the procession to the temple where the people waived palms and shouted “Hosanna” a “work”? Being the priest offering the sacrifice while simultaneously being the sacrifice, His single act (i.e. work) of Passion transformed both heaven and earth. The old covenant Law did not have a means to obtain a forgiveness of sin. (cf Lev. 17:11, Rom 3:25 and Heb. 8:7). During Rosh Hashanah the practice of Tahilikh (the casting off of sins) was observed, but it didn’t approach the Sacrament of Penance. A prophecy tells of God rising up a horn of salvation “to perform the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember His holy covenant” (a work). Couldn’t we even say that Christ’s birth in late December a “work” found in the Jewish Hanukah – the lighting of the menorah? Christ even waits till the feast of Hanukah to proclaim, “The Father and I are one.” (The light of the world). Jesus lived his faith and the traditions of his Jewish faith like no other man; obedient to the point of sweating blood, to the point of death. Christ didn’t simply listen to God, he was a “doer” of God’s words. The same advice James gives us, “[W]ith meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls” Why ‘ingrafted’ should be obvious – “a good habit consonant with our nature," i.e. virtue. “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves… For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was.” James 1:21-24.

The man we call Christ didn’t come to the Jews and say, “I believe, therefore I am - so follow me.” To emulate Christ Paul tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. (cf Phil 2:12). I find it quite evident that there can be no “once saved always save”, nor salvation without cooperation with grace, i.e. work.

JoeT

 

[Cat_Herder]

The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t have a Tradition of grace alone nor does it have the distinctly Protestant traditions of salvation through scripture alone, salvation by grace alone, salvation through Christ alone, or salvation through God’s grace alone.

Whoa there pardner. We do believe in sola gratia.

 

[JoeT777]

Whoa there pardner. We do believe in sola gratia.

You’re absolutely right. I meant it in the sense that God does not work alone contrary to what a monergist might say, that God works alone preordaining who is saved and who isn’t. You might say a faith that strikes us dumb with an irresistible saving faith – God’s robots.

I agree that all salvation works through God’s graces.

Thanks for pointing out my error.

JoeT

 

[Philthy]

Yes, because as we discussed in this thread the Catholic Church considers it a mortal sin.

You seem confused. Mortal sin requires grave matter, knowledge that the act is gravely sinful and full consent of the will. You, for example, do not commit a mortal sin by missing Mass because you are clearly ignorant of it’s gravity. Missing Mass is a grave sin - that is what the Church says, and they do not speak to the heart of the person who does so.

Then where does it come from?

What do you mean where does it come from? It comes from the Apostles, the leaders of the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth that enables one to know how to act in the church of the living God. Where else would it come from? Did you think people were standing around for centuries waiting for the NT to be written and revealed before they started celebrating Mass on Sundays?

No one here has been able to show why it is a grave sin not to meet on Sunday other than pointing to Hebrews 10. But Hebrews 10 makes no command to meet on the Lord’s day, nor does it list the Lord’s supper as a reason to not forsake assembling. The reasons given are: to provoke one another unto love and good works, and to exhort one another.

It is a grave sin because it is done in defiance of the Church. That would be the same Church, I will remind you, that gave you the Bible.

Again, where in the Bible does it say we must meet on the Lord’s day? Hebrews 10 doesn’t say that.

Again, where does it say that all matters of faith are contained in the Bible? That’s what I meant when I said I wasnt under the delusion that all doctrine must be explicitly spelled out in Scripture…

The Bible doesn’t give anyone the right to determine rules and laws regarding the practice of the faith.
Paul said to the church in Rome…
And to the Colossians…

• Well which is it - does St Paul have authority over us or not? If he does, then how can you say the Bible doesnt give anyone the right to determine rules and laws? If he doesnt, then why are you quoting him as if he is authoritative?
• Paul was an authority in the Church as were all the Apostles. Their authority was both oral and written. They passed their authority on to successive generations. None of those successive generations ever claimed that oral authority had ended, that Church authority had ended, or that the NT was the sole authority for the faith. The authority of the Church is the only reason you have the Bible - if you dont accept their authority then on what basis do you accept that Paul’s letters are Scripture?

Blessings!

 

[Brian_Culliton]

What do you mean where does it come from? It comes from the Apostles, the leaders of the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth that enables one to know how to act in the church of the living God. Where else would it come from? Did you think people were standing around for centuries waiting for the NT to be written and revealed before they started celebrating Mass on Sundays?

I am asking you to prove it. Show me the evidence that it came from the apostles.

It is a grave sin because it is done in defiance of the Church. That would be the same Church, I will remind you, that gave you the Bible.

Let’s talk about that. I’ll let you start. Why do you say the RCC gave me the Bible?

Again, where does it say that all matters of faith are contained in the Bible? That’s what I meant when I said I wasnt under the delusion that all doctrine must be explicitly spelled out in Scripture…

I have no problem with that as long as you can prove it came from the apostles. So prove to me that your holy days of obligation came from the apostles.

The authority of the Church is the only reason you have the Bible - if you dont accept their authority then on what basis do you accept that Paul’s letters are Scripture?

Why don’t you tell me how that happened? How did the New Testament canon come to be? I think I would like to have this discussion.

 

[davidv]

I am asking you to prove it. Show me the evidence that it came from the apostles.

The presence of the Church and the unbroken chain of ordinations of bishop is the evidence. However, you won’t accept that will you? Prove that it is not evidence.

Let’s talk about that. I’ll let you start. Why do you say the RCC gave me the Bible?

Because it is true. The editors of the Bible in the fourth century were all Catholic.

I have no problem with that as long as you can prove it came from the apostles. So prove to me that your holy days of obligation came from the apostles.

Why don’t you tell me how that happened? How did the New Testament canon come to be? I think I would like to have this discussion.

Please search these fora. There is plenty of information to answer this question.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Let’s talk about that. I’ll let you start. Why do you say the RCC gave me the Bible? Why don’t you tell me how that happened? How did the New Testament canon come to be? I think I would like to have this discussion.

Fine, but it will be a very short discussion.

The canon of the Bible was formally decided by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, in 367 AD. His decisions were confirmed by two church synods and by Pope Damasus I.

If you don’t believe me, go look in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Or if you think that Britannica is some kind of Vatican conspiracy, go look at the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest surviving Bible, yourself. Then compare it with the Bible you bought at Wal-Mart. You are missing 7 books.

So prove to me that your holy days of obligation came from the apostles.

You got it.
The Bible:

Acts 20:16
For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia; he was eager to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.

Acts 27:9-10
Since much time had been lost and sailing was now dangerous, because even the Fast had already gone by…

There’s Pentecost, which is still observed by the Catholic Church, and the Day of Atonement aka Yom Kippur (from whence came Lent) right there in Scripture.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

The canon of the Bible was formally decided by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, in 367 AD. His decisions were confirmed by two church synods and by Pope Damasus I.

If you don’t believe me, go look in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Or if you think that Britannica is some kind of Vatican conspiracy, go look at the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest surviving Bible, yourself. Then compare it with the Bible you bought at Wal-Mart. You are missing 7 books.

This is interesting. You tell me that Athanasius, who was not a Roman Catholic, “decided” which books belong in the canon, then you point me to an older manuscript from Eusebius’ era (also not a Roman Catholic); probably from his “fifty bibles” he compiled for Constantine. So if the closed canon of the early fifth century agrees with Athanasius’ canon, which agrees with Eusebius’ canon, why do you give credit to the Roman Catholic Church? All they did was formally close the canon – they decided nothing.

Your apologists are always telling us that the Catholic hierarchy (the Roman church) is a living magisterium that leads the church in all truth. So why is it that the church in Rome possessed a canon of Scripture in the second century that differs from the final version?

For example, did the Roman church “infallibly” decide that Hebrews **was not **authoritative and genuine in the second century, then after being convinced by Athanasius in the fourth century, they “infallibly” decided it was authoritative and genuine?

There’s Pentecost, which is still observed by the Catholic Church, and the Day of Atonement aka Yom Kippur (from whence came Lent) right there in Scripture.

When you read that Paul was eager to be in Jerusalem on Pentecost, you interpret that as, Christians must keep Pentecost or they commit mortal sin? This is why I ignore your posts.

 

[JonNC]

You’re absolutely right. I meant it in the sense that God does not work alone contrary to what a monergist might say, that God works alone preordaining who is saved and who isn’t. You might say a faith that strikes us dumb with an irresistible saving faith – God’s robots.

I agree that all salvation works through God’s graces.

Thanks for pointing out my error.

JoeT

Hi Joe,
As one who believes that justification is monergistic, I too would disagree with the notion that God preordains who is saved and who is condemned. That’s Calvinism, which I reject.
While I would say that one is justificed by Grace alone through faith in Christ, I would not deny the following: 1) that God intends all to be saved by Christ’s death and resurrection, and 2) we have the free will to reject Grace.

In my opinion there is a synergism between God and man when sanctifying graces are conferred; the free human will and the will of God (the Holy Spirit) work together to bring about spiritual regeneration or salvation. [cf. Trent, Sixth Session, Cannon IV] The Lutheran view would reject any type of cooperation with the concept of “once saved always saved,” and is certitude of justification. The Lutheran views man as totally depraved and as such saving graces must be forced on man. Luther rejects that there is freewill. Similarly Calvin’s views of a fiduciary faith which denies that man can ever be holy, a faith that merely covers sin. Catholics however believe in a justification through penance and good works and a sacrament that actually removes sin.

There is no acceptance of Perseverence of Saints in a Lutheran view. As I said above, the Lutheran Confessions are clear that we do have free will to reject grace. We don’t have free will to come to faith by our own choice or actions. Justification is the work of the Holy Spirit through Baptism and the hearing of the word. While justification is monergistic, a work of the Triune God, sanctification requires a participation on our part, synergistic.

The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t have a Tradition of grace alone nor does it have the distinctly Protestant traditions of salvation through scripture alone, salvation by grace alone, salvation through Christ alone, or salvation through God’s grace alone.

My understanding is that Catholics and Lutherans do agree on sola gracia.
The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification says:
“In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. 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.”

I’ve never heard of salvation through scripture alone. If you are referring to sola scriptura, it is the practice holding all teachings and teachers accountable to scripture. Certainly, a Catholic is not condemned simply as a result of rejecting sola scriptura.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=De Maria;7070182]

Is that response a work or not?

In terms of a response to justification, yes.

Do you mean “commandments”?

Yes, and both.

If you mean “commandments”, I’d be forced to agree. And this is still before Baptism, agreed?

Of an adult, yes, remembering that the Holy Spirit often brings us to faith through the hearing of the word.

Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

This is interesting. You tell me that Athanasius, who was not a Roman Catholic, “decided” which books belong in the canon,
then you point me to an older manuscript from Eusebius’ era (also not a Roman Catholic); probably from his “fifty bibles” he compiled for Constantine. So if the closed canon of the early fifth century agrees with Athanasius’ canon, which agrees with Eusebius’ canon, why do you give credit to the Roman Catholic Church?

Please justify your assertion that Athanasius and Eusebius were not Catholic.

All they did was formally close the canon – they decided nothing.

Your apologists are always telling us that the Catholic hierarchy (the Roman church) is a living magisterium that leads the church in all truth. So why is it that the church in Rome possessed a canon of Scripture in the second century that differs from the final version?

Nobody had an authoritative canon in the 2nd century. Are you referring to the Muratorian “canon”? When was that declared authoritative by anyone?

I think your confusion also comes from defining the “Catholic hierarchy” as “the Roman church.” The “Catholic hierarchy” consists of bishops worldwide and it always has. Have you ever looked up the word “catholic” in the dictionary? It doesn’t mean “Roman.”

For example, did the Roman church “infallibly” decide that Hebrews **was not **authoritative and genuine in the second century, then after being convinced by Athanasius in the fourth century, they “infallibly” decided it was authoritative and genuine?

There was no papal or conciliar decision on the canon in the 2nd century. The term “canonized” wasn’t used by anyone until the 4th century.

When you read that Paul was eager to be in Jerusalem on Pentecost, you interpret that as, Christians must keep Pentecost or they commit mortal sin?

Your misunderstanding comes from leaving the Eucharist out of the discussion. Is it unreasonable to assert that Paul broke bread on Pentecost, like he did every Sunday? Weren’t all the assembly required to be there?

This is why I ignore your posts.

In vehemens, veritas.

 

[De_Maria]

In terms of a response to justification, yes.

What do you mean? We were speaking of preparation for Baptism. So, your response sounds as though you agree that it is possible to produce good works before Baptism. Is that correct?

Yes, and both.

Ok, so this substantiates that you believe that we can produce good works before Baptism. Great! Let me know if there is something I’m missing.

Of an adult, yes, remembering that the Holy Spirit often brings us to faith through the hearing of the word.

Amen! If you and I were on the table at the Joint Declaration Committee, our work would be done.

Thanks.

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

You’re absolutely right. I meant it in the sense that God does not work alone contrary to what a monergist might say, that God works alone preordaining who is saved and who isn’t. You might say a faith that strikes us dumb with an irresistible saving faith – God’s robots.

I agree that all salvation works through God’s graces.

Thanks for pointing out my error.

JoeT

Whoa, take her easy there, Pilgrim!

Cat and Joe,

Sola Gratiae is not a Catholic doctrine.

1. The article referenced by Cat is written by one James Akin. He might be a wonderful apologist. But he doesn’t write Catholic doctrine. Only the Church does that.
2. The Catholic Church has no doctrine known as Sola Gratiae.
3. Protestants have a doctrine known as Sola Gratiae and the teaching is not accepted by the Catholic Church.
4. According to Catholic teaching, we are saved by grace through faith. Not by grace alone.

It seems to me, that apologists, like James Akin, are taking an incomplete view of the entire argument.

I think the Catholic Church, although I’ve not seen it written anywhere, would agree that salvation is OFFERED by grace alone. No one twisted God’s arm to send His Beloved Son to die for our sins. No one twisted Jesus’ arm to die for our sins.

So, that is all God’s doing. That is all grace. But it isn’t the doctrine of Sola Gratia.

Sola Gratia is not about the offering of Salvation. It is about the accomplishment of salvation in the individual. And Sola Gratia, as it was originally taught, says that there is no need for human participation or cooperation in their own salvation.

But that is not what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that we must participate in our own justification. And justification is a major part of salvation. Ergo, we must participate in our own salvation.

This is from wikipedia and I think the difference in the Catholic and Protestant understanding of grace is fairly presented:

**Sola gratia **is the teaching that salvation comes by God’s grace or “unmerited favor” only — not as something merited by the sinner. This means that salvation is an unearned gift from God for Jesus’ sake. While some maintain that this doctrine is the opposite of “works’ righteousness” and conflicts with some of the aspects of the Roman Catholic doctrine of merit, it might be asserted that this article, taken at face value, conflicts in no way with Roman Catholic teaching; while the doctrine that grace is truly and always a gift of God is held in agreement between both views, **the difference in doctrine lies mainly in two facts: that of God as sole actor in grace (in other words, that grace is always efficacious without any cooperation by man), and second, that man cannot by any action of his own, acting under the influence of grace, cooperate with grace to “merit” greater graces for himself (the latter would be the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church). **This doctrine asserts divine monergism in salvation: God acts alone to save the sinner. The responsibility for salvation does not rest on the sinner to any degree as in “synergism” or Arminianism. Lutheranism holds that this doctrine must not be maintained to the exclusion of gratia universalis (that God seriously wills the salvation of all people).

Here it is in Trent:
CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS

It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.

Hence, when it is said in the sacred writings:
Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,[19] we are reminded of our liberty; and when we reply:
Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,[20] we confess that we need the grace of God.

And here it is in the Council of Orange:
CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

Conclusion…
According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. …

So, I think this reinterpretation of Protestant doctrine to make Catholic doctrine more appealing to Protestants, and I’m just assuming that is the reason for it, is ill advised. I think it confuses Protestants and Catholics alike.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

…
My understanding is that Catholics and Lutherans do agree on sola gracia.
The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification says:
"In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. 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."

We have to wait for Catholic Church approval of that statement don’t we? And I think that would be hard to reconcile with Trent, which is the infallible teaching of the Church on the matter.

**CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS
**It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, **man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, **nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.
Hence, when it is said in the sacred writings:
Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,[19] we are reminded of our liberty; and when we reply:
Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,[20] we confess that we need the grace of God.

I’ve never heard of salvation through scripture alone. If you are referring to sola scriptura, it is the practice holding all teachings and teachers accountable to scripture. Certainly, a Catholic is not condemned simply as a result of rejecting sola scriptura.

But you are probably all alone in that opinion. Just kidding. But I speak to many Protestants, especially on CARM, who certainly would argue with you about that.

Jon

De Maria

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’ve never heard of salvation through scripture alone. If you are referring to sola scriptura, it is the practice holding all teachings and teachers accountable to scripture. Certainly, a Catholic is not condemned simply as a result of rejecting sola scriptura.

This is, in fact, sola scriptura. The kind of “sola scriptura” which goes farther and says that the Bible is the only source of teaching (not just the only standard to which teaching is held) is actually solo scriptura, although it is called sola scriptura by many. Here is a Google result showing different takes on the difference.

Compare both with prima scriptura, the Catholic and Methodist approach, in which the Bible holds first place among coequal sources of teaching (for the Catholic, the others being Tradition and Magisterium, and for the Methodist, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral; for the Anglican, it could be the 39 Articles, etc depending on where you are.)

 

[De_Maria]

I am asking you to prove it. Show me the evidence that it came from the apostles.

The evidence that it came from the Apostles is in Hebrews 10 as I showed you before. And in the Traditions of the Church which go hand in hand with Scripture. In fact, the New Testament is the product of Church Traditions because Jesus Christ did not write one word of Scripture. He established a Church and commanded His Church to teach His Traditions.

Let’s talk about that. I’ll let you start. Why do you say the RCC gave me the Bible?

Because Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church. Commanded Her to pass down the Traditions He taught. The Catholic Church, then by the authority vested in Her by Jesus Christ, wrote the New Testament. Then eventually canonized the Old and New Testaments in one Bible. And your Bible contains 66 of the 73 books canonized by the Catholic Church.

I have no problem with that as long as you can prove it came from the apostles. So prove to me that your holy days of obligation came from the apostles.

You’ll have to explain why first.

1. We’ve already proven that Jesus Christ gave the Church Divine authority:
   Matthew 16:19
   **And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt ****loose on earth shall be **loosed in heaven.
2. We already proved, from Scripture, that attendance at the Christian Assembly is mandatory:
   Hebrews 10

**25Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. **
** 26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, **
** 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. **
** 28He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: **
** 29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? **
** 30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. **
** 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. **

Logically then, the Church has the authority to designate any day as a day of Assembly and thus to assign any day as a Holy Day of Obligation.

So, please explain why we must prove that the specific Holy Days of Obligation must come from the Apostles?

Why don’t you tell me how that happened? How did the New Testament canon come to be? I think I would like to have this discussion.

The Church was inspired to write down the Traditions taught by Jesus Christ.

Let the discussion begin.

Sincerely,

De Maria