Knee jerk response to faith alone

[JonNC]

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?

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.

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

Thanks.

De Maria

See you there.

Of course, there are other issues to be converged, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Jon

 

[De_Maria]

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.)

I hate to disagree with you partner. But Prima Scriptura is only speculated to be a Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church has never spoken on the matter.

And I find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church would say, “Prima Scriptura” when Scipture teaches that “faith comes by hearing” and both Scripture and the Church teach that it is in the Mass that one learns the faith in the Liturgy of the Word.

And finally, both the Old and New Testaments were mostly the product of oral Traditions written down. Only the Ten Commandments were directly written by the Finger of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[JonNC]

=De Maria;7078697]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.

Nothing here I disagree with. As for the Catholic Church’s agreement on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, John Paul II approved it.

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.

Yes, I’d say that sola scriptura has been twisted by some into solo scriptura. But SS is not, per se, explicit in scripture, so for me it is not a doctrine, but a practice. And I don’t recall Christ saying, “he that believes and practices sola scriptura shall be saved.”
As Lutherans, we accept much of Tradition - the three creeds, the early 7 councils, etc. Even our own confessions are a “tradition”.

BTW, I find CARM so disheartening, so I rarely go there.

Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

I hate to disagree with you partner. But Prima Scriptura is only speculated to be a Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church has never spoken on the matter.

That’s why I said that Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium are coequal. There is no subordination between them, but among them, Scripture is given place of honor. For example, Deacons read the Gospel at Mass, not the canons of councils. I have only said what the Catechism does:
"Catechism of the Catholic Church # 95:

It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

And I find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church would say, “Prima Scriptura” when Scipture teaches that “faith comes by hearing” and both Scripture and the Church teach that it is in the Mass that one learns the faith in the Liturgy of the Word.

And finally, both the Old and New Testaments were mostly the product of oral Traditions written down. Only the Ten Commandments were directly written by the Finger of God.

Respectfully, you are reading into my post what isn’t there–I never said Tradition wasn’t the Word of God. It is.

“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

 

[bona_fides_1]

“Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1John 5:1-5)

Jesus said His yoke is easy and His burden is light. The Law was burdensome and nobody but Christ could keep it. Your church has a law that says Catholics must attend mass on obligated days, and if they fail to do so without good reason they commit mortal sin. Then in order to be restored to a state of grace they must confess to a priest and be absolved. This appears to be a burden.

Can you please tell me where Christ commanded this? I can’t find it anywhere?

So your line of reasoning is that if anything is a burden then it can’t be authentic teaching? Is this what you are saying? Didn’t Christ tell us to pick up our cross and follow Him?

Where did Christ command this?

This is implicitly subsumed within the Apostolic Commission and in the initial apostolic authority to loose and bind sins. Establishing disciplines and conditions for apostolic absolution is a clear subordinate authority (and duty) of an apostolic disciple of Christ.
Matthew 28:18-20 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ina the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

John 20:21 21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. **23If **you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” *

Clearly the authority to bind and loose sins subsumes the authority and license to JUDGE when to apply this enormous authority and grants an apostolic prerogative and discretion. This certainly implies an authority to also have the prerogative to establish rules, disciplines and conditions necessary for receiving this apostolic absolution and to avoid repeating such sins. So the Catholic Church, being the true apostolic successors of the apostles has established fair and equitable disciplines for all its members to ASSIST the individual to repentance, self-discipline and various helps and avoidance of sin. Coming to church each Sunday is a mandate inherited from the original Decalogue (shifted from keeping the sabbath holy to honoring the day of the Lord - the Jewish Christians often did both).

Do you doubt that the apostles had the authority to decide for themselves what disciplines they would impost on their own disciples they taught? Have you ever considered that virtually ALL of St. Paul’s letters are HIS apostolic teachings to those he converted and acted as earthly shepherd.

BF

 

[JoeT777]

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.

Juan:
For heaven’s sake CEASE FIRE PARTNER - it’s ME! I’m beginning to feel like a gobbler in a turkey hunt; no sooner than one chunk of lead flies by on the left when another whizzes past on the right of my poor head.

I was simply addressing monergism. But, when you go through all the cannons on Justification we see, as did St. Thomas, that ‘first cause’ of any grace is God’s will. Thus, in his infinite love for man He multiplied His graces beyond count; nevertheless, He is the FIRST cause of our salvation. Consequently, we say all honor and glory are His.

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. De Maria

You cut me to the quick; when was the last time you heard of me ‘sugar coating’ apologetics? Put up them thar six-shooters son; you make this old turkey nervous.

JoeT

 

[Cat_Herder]

De Maria:

Protestants have a doctrine known as Sola Gratiae and the teaching is not accepted by the Catholic Church.

Yes they do–but in fact, it is.
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1996:

Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification:

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. (link)

I think De Maria may not be too keen on the importing of Protestant-originated terminology like “sola gratia” and “prima scriptura” to describe Catholic doctrine.

That comes down to a prudential question of whether we should speak Protestant language in order to build common ground with them. I think the answer is yes, as long as we do so carefully, and De Maria may just be trying to keep us honest.

 

[JoeT777]

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.)

There seems to be no end to my faults. Actually, I used the term ‘salvation through scripture alone’ loosely (and cynically) to indicate the Protestant doctrine that is roughly translated to mean that Scripture is the sole and infallible rule of faith – scripture interprets Scripture, the meaning of which is…well, whatever the reader wants it to mean. Actually there are five Protestant sola(s) – nobody has ever answered how it is we can have five single causes of the same Salvation.

•Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)
•Sola fide (“by faith alone”)
•Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)
•Solus Christus or Solo Christo (“Christ alone” or “through Christ alone”)
•Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)

JoeT

 

[Cat_Herder]

There seems to be no end to my faults.

No one is perfect this side of heaven, least of all me.

Actually, I used the term ‘salvation through scripture alone’ loosely (and cynically) to indicate the Protestant doctrine that is roughly translated to mean that Scripture is the sole and infallible rule of faith – scripture interprets Scripture, the meaning of which is…well, whatever the reader wants it to mean. Actually there are five Protestant sola(s) – nobody has ever answered how it is we can have five single causes of the same Salvation.

Nor has anyone answered why each “sola,” except sola gratia and solo Christo, is contradicted by Scripture:

•Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”) No.

[BIBLEDRB]2 Thessalonians 2:14[/BIBLEDRB]

•Sola fide (“by faith alone”) No.

[BIBLEDRB]James 2:24[/BIBLEDRB]
•Sola gratia (“by grace alone”) Yes.
•Solus Christus or Solo Christo (“Christ alone” or “through Christ alone”) Yes, but with the understanding that Christ’s mediatorship is shared by the saints and the clergy on Earth (not to mention each one of us.)
[BIBLEDRB]Apocalypse 5:10[/BIBLEDRB]

•Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”) No.
[BIBLEDRB]Joshua 5:13-15[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Daniel 8:17 [/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Apocalypse 5:8[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[JoeT777]

No one is perfect this side of heaven, least of all me.

Nor has anyone answered why each “sola,” except sola gratia and solo Christo, is contradicted by Scripture:

•Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”) No.

Paraphrasing St. Francis de Sales, the sole and true rule of right-believing is the Word of God as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ. This rule is made up of eight individual principles, Scripture, Tradition, the Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope, miracles, and natural reasoning.

The first two principles are considered formal principles and are combined; we say they give us knowledge in “Christian faith grounded on the Word of God.” It is warranted by the Church as God’s eternal and infallible Truth, whereby those things taught by the Apostles and their successors are proof of the living Word as the first twelve witnessed them. Scriptures are but a special case of our living Tradition, preserving the very actions and deeds of witnesses who received their tutorage directly from Christ. Thus, an objective faith can be validated by the witness of Scripture when rightly understood. Those things that are subjective in our faith or those things not clear or not understood in Scripture are revealed by God to the Church. Since this validation is of an infallible Word of God, it must have an infallible accreditation.

Consequently, the formal and sacred rule must have an infallible judge to determine right-reasoning. Accordingly, to certify the revealed Word as genuine, we need guidance in the practical application of the formal rule; without which we would be in constant doubt. Do we believe rightly or not? Hence Christ blesses us with the Church, Councils, Fathers, and the Popes.

Some might say that Scripture itself is infallible, which in principle is true, if we could get inside the heads of the authors for the ‘true meaning’. However, our understanding of scripture is subject to the nature of human reasoning and as such fallible. Furthermore, we don’t find any verse that might suggest that Scripture validates itself as being an infallible rule of faith; Christ didn’t set out written instruction in his own hand. Christ’s mission, in part, establishes a “Church”, i.e. a Kingdom; not a Scripture. And, should we find Scripture infallible in this sense, it would rightly be an object of worship – that is having the infallible spirit of word; but we decidedly don’t worship a book. The Church, the Councils the Bishops, and the Pope are all consequences of Scripture and Tradition, continuing an infallible doctrine. Miracles are extraordinary means by which we can see the Word of God and are not normally binding on the remaining body of Christ. And finally nature reasoning is considered negative; negative because faith usually requires faith in things unseen; if any proposition can be reasoned as if to be seen, it isn’t a matter of faith, rather it is rooted in natural law.

JoeT

 

[dogknox]

De Maria it is good to meet you…
I have to add…
Baptism SAVES… It re-forms the person into the Body of Jesus…
Acts 2:40
With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”
41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were **added **to their number that day.

Three thousand were “ADDED” to the Body of Jesus>> by BAPTISM!!

De Maria Communion KEEPS the person; “FORMED in the Body of Jesus!”
The Protestant might have been baptized… BUT…
But they have long ago died from starvation…
John 6:55
For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood** remains in me, and I in him.**

All people must eat or they die… all must be nourished! Jesus is NO Different! “EAT TO LIVE”!
Ephesians 5:29
After all, no one ever hated his** own body,** but he** feeds** and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.

De Maria **Jesus feeds his body… all who EAT REMAIN in Jesus! **

To eat is Righteousness… It is DOING RIGHT!
1 John 3:7
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. **He who does what is right **is righteous, just as he is righteous.

To “DO RIGHT” is to eat!

“A person is JUSTIFIED by what they do”! James 2
“He who does RIGHT, is RIGHTEOUS!” 1 John 3:7

Dogknox

 

[JoeT777]

As for the Catholic Church’s agreement on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, John Paul II approved

The problem I see with the above is ignoring the fact that Lutheran and Catholic doctrine are two separate languages, even when using the same tongue. It stems from what appears to me as brick and mortar organizations, i.e. Churches versus a Kingdom of God with tangible and intangible assets both visibly and spiritually constituted by Christ, i.e. the Catholic Church. Especially, when speaking of the Joint Declaration on the doctrine of Justification we need to be perfectly clear that the declaration means the same to the Lutheran Church as it does to the Catholic Church, which it doesn’t. "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic …]. This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”. Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, William Cardinal Levada, July 2007.

Cardnial Levada’s statement is a stab at the legitimacy of many Protestant denominations evidenced by the Lutheran’s immediate wailing in the counter statement;

**“The Lutheran World Federation learns with dismay of the “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” issued from the Vatican this week by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This document clarifies for Roman Catholic theologians that the title “church” is not properly to be extended to “Christian communities” like the member bodies of our Lutheran communion, which were shaped by the crucible of Reformation. While this position is not new to us, we are saddened and disappointed that it is reasserted again for our current context, in which the work of ecumenical partnership has produced such significant results.” **Statement by Rev. Dr Ishmael Noko General Secretary, The Lutheran World Federation, GENEVA, 11 July 200 (I would like to point out that the “crucible of Reformation” referred to here is not legitimate nor will it ever be legitimate. Christ being perfect and the Church being the Body of Christ precludes reforming. After all how is ‘perfect’ reformed?)

I view the Joint Declaration as the Lutheran world along with all Protestant denominations seeking accreditation which it can only obtain from Rome. It’s necessitated by a corporeal sociological need to legitimize the Lutheran doctrinal existence. If Rome were ever to authenticate the Protestant doctrine the Roman Catholic Church would cease to exist, not being replaced by Protestantism as they would hope, but by liberal secularism. Knowing this, a dichotomy in the Protestant reasoning must exist, denial of the Roman authority and a spiritual thrust for the same Catholic doctrine. Any recognition by Rome of other Christian faiths must include acceptance of Papal Primacy, the very cause for the Protestant schism. Instead Protestants prefer to substitute rationalized reason; suggesting that what are Catholic Tradition and Scripture is theirs to reject.

“Lutheran churches do not accept the understandings of church or the description of our lived reality of faith which are found in the ‘Responses.’ Understanding ourselves to be fully church, where the gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered …” Statement by Rev. Dr Ishmael Noko General Secretary, The Lutheran World Federation, GENEVA, 11 July 2007.

Thus, a corollary to the conundrum, how can both faiths with diametrically opposed doctrines co-exist in one house; one, having Christ at its center, the other places “self” at the center? How do we find “unity to be both God’s gift to the one Body of Christ and the task of "the People of God” when, at the same time, schism denies the Real Body of Christ? This would be a cancer that would eat all Christian faiths from the inside out subjugating God’s will to man.

The Roman Catholic Church founded by Christ has no need for such recognition being God’s kingdom founded by Christ; ***"This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it (cf. Matt. 28:18, etc.), and which he raised up for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).” ***Lumen Gentium, Pope Paul VI, November 21, 1964. In an attempt rationalize the Protestant faith we often hear the refrain that one [Christian] religion is as good as another. But is it? The Catholic holds that this point of view is ***“based on incorrect theological perspectives and is characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another.’ “ ***Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris mission, December 7, 1990.

Therefore, as long as there is a Protestant error, such men will rage against the Pope as did the illegitimate prince Thersites who "went on wagging his unbridled tongue- a man of many words, and those unseemly; a monger of sedition, a railer against all who were in authority, who cared not what he said, so that he might set the Achaeans in a laugh…There is no viler creature come before Troy with the sons of Atreus.” The Iliad.

See also (Response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration of the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation on the Doctrine of Justification.)

JoeT

 

[JoeT777]

Back to Justification:

As to Justification, God is faithful in His words,* “let thy voice cease from weeping, and thy eyes tears: for there is a reward for thy work”* (Jeremiah 31:16). It’s not contrary to Catholic teaching that through virtuous charity that we merit justification. In the parable of the prodigal son I’ve always wondered why the story told with the “angry” brother; who by the way seems justified in his anger. Even still, it seems to me that the story can be told with almost the same allegorical sense without the faithful son. However, not only is there joy in the penitent son, but we also see the faithful son receive his merited reward, “Son, thou art always with me; and all I have is thine. But it was fit that we should make merry and be glad: for this thy brother was dead and is come to life again” (Luke 15: 31). The parable is about two rewards, the reward of repentance, and the reward of VIRTUOUS works, (not to be confused with the ‘honey do’ us men seemed to be plagued with - not that I’m complaining mind you). The reason for the admonition given by the father to the faithful son shows we can “merit the first grace for another congruously; because a man in grace fulfils God’s will, and it is congruous and in harmony with friendship that God should fulfil man’s desire for the salvation of another, although sometimes there may be an impediment on the part of him whose salvation the just man desires. And it is in this sense that the passage from Jeremias speaks.” St. Thomas, Summa

Paul teaches us to look to the promises of God, salvation in penance as well as virtue, “But God is faithful: for our preaching which was to you, was not, It is, and It is not. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, by me and Sylvanus and Timothy, was not: It is and It is not. But, It is, was in him. For all the promises of God are in him, It is. Therefore also by him, amen to God, unto our glory.” (2 Cor 1:18 seq.)

St. Thomas suggested that the New Covenant “derives its pre-eminence from the spiritual grace instilled into our hearts, is called the “Law of love”: and it is described as containing spiritual and eternal promises, which are objects of the virtues, chiefly of charity. (Summa Part 1 of 2 Q107, 1, 2). And Augustine says (super Ep. Joan.; cf. Ep. clxxxvi) that ***“charity merits increase, and being increased merits to be perfected.” ***Hence the increase of grace or charity falls under merit. St. Thomas, Summa

Unlike other faiths Catholics don’t hold to a fiduciary faith, one that simply covers sin, but rather a redemptive faith, one born out of our love for God in cooperation with our will. And what is the reward? That’s simple, to always be with Him. (Cf. Luke 15: 31).

JoeT

 

[De_Maria]

That’s why I said that Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium are coequal. There is no subordination between them, but among them, Scripture is given place of honor.

Certainly, the Word of God is given place of honor. But the Word of God consists of Scripture and Tradition. But neither the Catechism nor any document of the Church claim that the Scriptures are given “FIRST” place of honor. That is what “Prima” means, “First”.

For example, Deacons read the Gospel at Mass, not the canons of councils.

Oh!? But the Canons and the Councils are not the entirety of the Word of God. So is the Mass, so is the Liturgy, so is the Eucharist. And the Eucharist is the Source and Summit of our Faith.

Do you mean that the Scripture is first for some sort of research purpose? I don’t get it. How would this doctrine be defined if it were ever defined?

I have only said what the Catechism does:

 Quote:
                                                                  Originally Posted by **Catechism of the Catholic Church # 95**                                      
             *It is clear therefore that, in the  supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture  and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that  one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in  its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all  contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.*

Well, the Church puts sacred Tradition first in the arrangement of that order. And that doesn’t say anything about “Prima Scriptura”. The only one I’ve heard say anything about Prima Scriptura is Scott Hahn. And I’m a great fan of his but I just thought he was bringing up some Protestant thing he was clinging to. Cause I haven’t seen it anywhere in Catholic doctrine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*And I find it hard to believe that the Catholic Church would say, “Prima Scriptura” when Scipture teaches that “faith comes by hearing” and both Scripture and the Church teach that it is in the Mass that one learns the faith in the Liturgy of the Word.

And finally, both the Old and New Testaments were mostly the product of oral Traditions written down. Only the Ten Commandments were directly written by the Finger of God.*

Respectfully, you are reading into my post what isn’t there–I never said Tradition wasn’t the Word of God. It is.

You are misunderstanding my post. I never said that you said Tradition was NOT the Word of God.

I simply said that “Prima Scriptura” is not a Catholic doctrine. Some people speculate that it may become such in the future. But it isn’t one now. And personally, I think it would be hard to supplant the Source and Summit of the Faith, the Eucharist, a Tradition.

Of course, I hadn’t considered of it being defined for some sort of “research” purpose or something like that.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Juan:
For heaven’s sake CEASE FIRE PARTNER - it’s ME! I’m beginning to feel like a gobbler in a turkey hunt; no sooner than one chunk of lead flies by on the left when another whizzes past on the right of my poor head.

Duck and cover Joe! Duck and cover!

The Cat and I are just having target practice and you happened along so we thought we’d make you dance a bit.

I was simply addressing monergism. But, when you go through all the cannons on Justification we see, as did St. Thomas, that ‘first cause’ of any grace is God’s will.

Amen!

Thus, in his infinite love for man He multiplied His graces beyond count; nevertheless, He is the FIRST cause of our salvation. Consequently, we say all honor and glory are His.

Amen! But remember:
**1847 ****“God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us.”**116 To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."117

You cut me to the quick; when was the last time you heard of me ‘sugar coating’ apologetics?

I didn’t mean YOU. I meant the fella that wrote that article which is entitled JUSTIFICATION: “BY FAITH ALONE”?
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

Put up them thar six-shooters son; you make this old turkey nervous.

Well Pilgrim, your prayers have been answered.

Juan

 

[De_Maria]

Yes they do–but in fact, it is.

I think De Maria may not be too keen on the importing of Protestant-originated terminology like “sola gratia” and “prima scriptura” to describe Catholic doctrine.

That comes down to a prudential question of whether we should speak Protestant language in order to build common ground with them.

Is that what is happening? Someone ought to inform the rest of us. Cause when I hear a purportedly Catholic apologist say we believe in Sola Gratia, I begin to wonder what Church he is really representing.

I think the answer is yes, as long as we do so carefully, and De Maria may just be trying to keep us honest.

Yeah. Cause I hadn’t heard of that plan and I’m pretty sure that there are a lot of Catholics out there who are wondering what’s going on with Catholics in the good old U.S. of A.

Who started this anyway? Cause I know there are at least three well known Catholic Apologists who are using that terminology. And I think its turning off some Catholics while I have yet to meet any Protestants who are attracted by the window dressing. In fact, I’ve heard at least one say that Catholics are selling works theology couched in the language of grace.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Nothing here I disagree with. As for the Catholic Church’s agreement on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, John Paul II approved it.

Wait!? I’m sure I’ve checked on it recently and I didn’t see it approved:
*The Catholic Church is, however, of the opinion that we cannot yet speak of a consensus such as would eliminate every difference between Catholics and Lutherans in the understanding of justification. *
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

**CLARIFICATIONS
3. As stated in n. 17 of the Joint Declaration, Lutherans and Catholics share the common conviction that the new life comes from divine mercy and not from any merit of ours. It must, however, be remembered - as stated in 2 Cor 5:17 - that this divine mercy brings about a new creation and so makes man capable of responding to God’s gift , of cooperating with grace. In this regard, the Catholic Church notes with satisfaction that n. 21, in conformity with can. 4 of the Decree on Justification of the Council of Trent ( DS 1554) states that man can refuse grace; but it must also be affirmed that, with this freedom to refuse, there is also a new capacity to adhere to the divine will, a capacity rightly called “cooperatio”. ** This new capacity given in the new creation, does not allow us to use in this context the expression “mere passive” ( n. 21). On the other hand, the fact that this capacity has the character of a gift is well expressed in cap. 5 (DS 1525) of the Tridentine Decree when it says: “ita ut tangente Deo cor hominis per Spiritus Sancti illuminationem, neque homo ipse nihil omnino agat, inspirationem illam recipiens, quippe qui illam et abicere potest, neque tamen sine gratia Dei movere se ad iustitiam coram illo libera sua voluntate possit”…

Yes, I’d say that sola scriptura has been twisted by some into solo scriptura. But SS is not, per se, explicit in scripture, so for me it is not a doctrine, but a practice. And I don’t recall Christ saying, “he that believes and practices sola scriptura shall be saved.”
As Lutherans, we accept much of Tradition - the three creeds, the early 7 councils, etc. Even our own confessions are a “tradition”.

But the critical one is Authority. Would you accept the authority of the Catholic Church?

BTW, I find CARM so disheartening, so I rarely go there.

I don’t know what that says about me, but I go there everyday…

But I do understand what you mean. I try to respond only to a certain few.

Jon

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Pretty good for a herder of cats (yuck!) who just converted in 2009. If there was a way to give you rep points, I would do it. You’ll have to settle for a .

By the way, since I copied it, can I use it elsewhere? I might even take credit for it. No one would believe me if I said I copied it from a cat herder.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Cat_Herder]

Pretty good for a herder of cats (yuck!) who just converted in 2009. If there was a way to give you rep points, I would do it. You’ll have to settle for a .

By the way, since I copied it, can I use it elsewhere? I might even take credit for it. No one would believe me if I said I copied it from a cat herder.

Sincerely,

De Maria

LOL. Thanks. The “Prima” Scriptura bit, or the list of debunkable Solas? I’m pretty sure that these are both pretty common knowledge. Though if they don’t believe that you got them from a cat herder, you can make single post links like this or this.

For the record, I used to have two Shih Tzus, so I’m not totally given to feline bias.

 

[De_Maria]

De Maria it is good to meet you…

Again. I haven’t bumped into you on CARM very often lately. I’m assuming you’re the same guy cause your style is unique.

I have to add…
Baptism SAVES… It re-forms the person into the Body of Jesus…
Acts 2:40
With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”
41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were **added **to their number that day.

Three thousand were “ADDED” to the Body of Jesus>> by BAPTISM!!

De Maria Communion KEEPS the person; “FORMED in the Body of Jesus!”
The Protestant might have been baptized… BUT…
But they have long ago died from starvation…
John 6:55
For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood** remains in me, and I in him.**

All people must eat or they die… all must be nourished! Jesus is NO Different! “EAT TO LIVE”!
Ephesians 5:29
After all, no one ever hated his** own body,** but he** feeds** and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body.

De Maria Jesus feeds his body… all who EAT REMAIN in Jesus!

To eat is Righteousness… It is DOING RIGHT!
1 John 3:7
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. **He who does what is right **is righteous, just as he is righteous.

To “DO RIGHT” is to eat!

“A person is JUSTIFIED by what they do”! James 2
“He who does RIGHT, is RIGHTEOUS!” 1 John 3:7

Dogknox

Yep! That’s you. Thanks for the great post!

De Maria