Knee jerk response to faith alone

[De_Maria]

There seems to be no end to my faults…

You’re Numero Uno in my book buddy!

JoeT

Don’t tell Cat, but there’s no such thing as “Solo” Scriptura. Its ungrammatical. Scriptura being of the feminine gender must be described by an adjective of the matching gender. Thus “Sola Scriptura”.

Sincerely,

Juan (aka De Maria)

 

[bona_fides_1]

Scott Hahn comes originally from a Protestant tradition and uses a lot of scriptural arguments to advance Catholic teaching but he would NEVER say that Catholics are believers in the primacy of scripture. Catholics give equal weight to all of God’s word- sacred tradition and sacred scripture. The caveat is that one never contradicts the other and never will.

I am reading one of Scott Hahn’s books now and he is quoting a lot of the Early Church Fathers. So some one is misinterpreting Dr. Hahn if they think he is a sola scriptura advocate.

BF

 

[De_Maria]

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

They are all contradicted by Scripture. Where do you get the impression that they are not?

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

[bibledrb]2 Thessalonians 2:14[/bibledrb]

•Sola fide (“by faith alone”) No.

[bibledrb]James 2:24[/bibledrb

•http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas#Sola_gratia_.28.22by_grace_alone.22.29”]Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)

Yes.

No.
Hebrews 5:9
And being consummated, he became,** to all that obey him**, the cause of eternal salvation.

James 2:24
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

•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]

1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.

James 5:20
He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.

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

Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)

Main article: Soli Deo gloria
Soli Deo gloria is the teaching that all glory is to be due to God alone, since salvation is accomplished solely through His will and action — not only the gift of the all-sufficient atonement of Jesus on the cross but also the gift of faith in that atonement, created in the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit. The reformers believed that human beings —even saints canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, the popes, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy— are not worthy of the glory that was accorded them. That is that one should not exalt such humans for their good works, but rather praise and give glory to God who is the author and sanctifier of these people and their good works.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas

See that which I highlighted in red. Therefore, the Reformer’s version of this doctrine is false.

Deuteronomy 5:16
Honour thy father and mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee, that thou mayst live a long time, and it may be well with thee in the land, which the Lord thy God will give thee.

Deuteronomy 27:16
Cursed be he that honoureth not his father and mother: and all the people shall say: Amen.

4 Kings 13:21
And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet.

Acts 5:

[11] And there came great fear upon the whole church, and upon all that heard these things. [12] And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch. [13] But of the rest no man durst join himself unto them; but the people magnified them. [14] And the multitude of men and women who believed in the Lord, was more increased: [15] Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that when Peter came, his shadow at the least, might overshadow any of them, and they might be delivered from their infirmities.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

LOL. Thanks. The “Prima” Scriptura bit, or the list of debunkable Solas?

No. Your response to Brian about the day of worship.

I’m pretty sure that these are both pretty common knowledge.

Yeah. I know those backward and forward. The one above my is the one I’m talkin’ about.

Though if they don’t believe that you got them from a cat herder, you can make single post links like this or this.

I’ll do it.

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

Are those dogs? Are you really from deep South?

 

[Cat_Herder]

They are all contradicted by Scripture. Where do you get the impression that they are not?

Assuming that is targeted to me… What I meant to say is: No one has as of yet, in this thread, explained that they are unscriptural. Which is why I went on to explain that they are unscriptural.

I like your enhancements though.

 

[Cat_Herder]

No sola gratia because God’s grace is resistible–we have to choose Him. I get it now.

I think when Protestants and the Joint Declaration say sola gratia, they mean it to say that God’s grace is the only source of salvation–not that the application of that grace is automatic. That is how I interpret it, anyway.

My grandmom was not from the deep south so the dogs were hers, I got to borrow them

 

[JoeT777]

For a few months I visited the CARM site to join in on the debate. The Catholic section is touted as a ‘training’ area for future Protestant Apologists. But the board’s owner warns ‘real’ Christians that “There are those who come here for the purpose of destroying the faith of Christians”. I soon learnd this is coded language for ‘Catholic’. Whether you know it or not operator writes scathing ridicule about the Catholic faith, almost exclusively and posts it on the homepage. When you join, you are agreeing to give CARM copyrights to whatever you submit to the board. It may be used by the operator to ridicule Catholics – ridicule and ad hominem seems to be CARM’s primary apologetic tools. What I also found was that the operator’s ‘feature’ articles often quots from posts to ridicule and to mischaracterize submitted Catholic material in an attempt to turn it against the Church. For example, today on CARM’s homepage there is a personal attack against ST. Mary, “Roman Catholicism, Mary, and Idolatry” by Matt Slick. If you ask, you will not be offered an opportunity to write a Catholic point-of-view on the same material for the homepage.

I gave up CARM because of the ad hominems, insults, and the calumny addressed at the Church. It just simply gets old; there is no interest in polite conversation. I would not recommend it to my worst enemy. If you have one of those uncontrollable itches to offer up Catholic Apologetics you’d get more personal satisfaction by sticking your head in a wasps nest. Just for fun, open a thread on CARM that simply reads “Catholic” for the first comment, write the word “Catholic” or if you want to be hyper-provocative write ‘Roman Catholic’. Don’t participate – even still you’ll get a list of insults for yourself and the Church that will be permitted to go on ad infinitum – any Catholic board I’ve visited would lock it down, but fast. CARM is where I learned that there is little desire among most non-Catholics, to understand Catholicism, they have their own world, history, and God – and they don’t want you to wake them with any sobering Catholic truth.

JoeT

 

[Philthy]

No sola gratia because God’s grace is resistible–we have to choose Him. I get it now.

I think when Protestants and the Joint Declaration say sola gratia, they mean it to say that God’s grace is the only source of salvation–not that the application of that grace is automatic. That is how I interpret it, anyway.

My grandmom was not from the deep south so the dogs were hers, I got to borrow them

Yaknow, the funniest thing is how incredibly difficult it can be for two people to come to a true understanding of what a written statement says. It just completely refutes even the mildest forms of Sola Scriptura IMHO…

 

[De_Maria]

Scott Hahn comes originally from a Protestant tradition and uses a lot of scriptural arguments to advance Catholic teaching but he would NEVER say that Catholics are believers in the primacy of scripture. Catholics give equal weight to all of God’s word- sacred tradition and sacred scripture. The caveat is that one never contradicts the other and never will.

I am reading one of Scott Hahn’s books now and he is quoting a lot of the Early Church Fathers. So some one is misinterpreting Dr. Hahn if they think he is a sola scriptura advocate.

BF

I didn’t say he is a sola scriptura advocate. I said he seems to believe in a doctrine called Prima Scriptura.

I can’t find the quote, but its not what this thread is about anyway.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

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;

That’s a bit perplexing. What is the difference between the Catholic Teaching that Sacred Scripture is without error and Scripture as 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.

That’s what I always thought. I believe I read it from one of the Saints as well. But I can’t remember which. Anyway, I always concluded that Jesus did not have faith as we do. Jesus knew He was God. Jesus KNEW the Father.

We have faith in He whom we can’t see.
Jesus had faith in He whom He knew personally.

Make any sense?

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

The problem I see with the above is ignoring the fact that Lutheran and Catholic doctrine are two separate languages,…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?)

Excellent point! The fact is there was no Reformation of Catholicism. There was only a defection by those who exchanged the true faith for their own form of worship.

I view the Joint Declaration as the Lutheran world along with all Protestant denominations seeking accreditation which it can only obtain from Rome… Instead Protestants prefer to substitute rationalized reason; suggesting that what are Catholic Tradition and Scripture is theirs to reject.

I agree.

But I wonder whether the Church is not permitting these dialogues in hopes that the Prodigal Children will figure out what they’ve done wrong?

“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.

Always remember that everything is possible with God. At the moment, there are stumbling blocks. But if there are men of good will on both sides, then where two or three come together, Our Lord is right there amongst them.

We can work it out.

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.)

Excellent Joe!

The Joint Declaration will not work unless Protestants are willing to set aside their errors.

 

[De_Maria]

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.)

It wasn’t for nothing that St. Peter said that there are many things “hard to understand” in St. Paul’s epistles. There are and there are not.

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).

Exactly! We change our very nature. Works are transformative. It is not wrong to say that we are justified by works because by establishing virtuous habits, we eliminate sin from our very soul. Our material bodies are a significant part of our soul and when we inculcate on our nerve endings and muscle memory, habits of good work and virtuous actions, we transform our very souls.

And good works are an essential part of faith. Without good works, we can hardly claim to have faith in God. And without faith in God, good works will be absent.

It must be obvious that you’re preaching to the choir Joe.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[JoeT777]

That’s a bit perplexing. What is the difference between the Catholic Teaching that Sacred Scripture is without error and Scripture as an infallible rule of faith?

I should have added a few more words to explain an ‘infallible Scripture’. This is the sort of Protestant solo Scriptura that we’ve both encountered, where what I read is holy scripture, the meaning of which is made clear to me by the Holy Spirit, thus it’s holiness is elevated still more, even when I apply Scripture subjectively - after all human nature is to put God on ‘our side’. God’s Truth plays a small role in this type of faith, rather a subjective understanding that rationalizes truth, subjecting God’s will to our will. Therefore, what the scripture means to me is infallible. This is worship of the Divine Logos or the Divine Word, the book, i.e. the Bible. I think I got this notion from reading St. Francis de Sales, but maybe it was Pope Benedict - I can’t recall.

The Catholic rule of faith is the eight principles I listed, but Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition are a special concomitant and concurrent measures and rules of what we believe. What’s proved to be in Scripture must be validated in Tradition, and viscera. That’s why in most papal epistles we find a scriptural proof and proof from Tradition. Scripture is a special case of Tradition being the written word of apostolic doctrine, the two can’t be separated. Both are important, both make up the ‘basis’ of our faith.

That’s what I always thought. I believe I read it from one of the Saints as well. But I can’t remember which.

I’m sure this comes from St. Thomas - almost

Anyway, I always concluded that Jesus did not have faith as we do.

Jesus knew He was God.
Jesus KNEW the Father.

We have faith in He whom we can’t see.
Jesus had faith in He whom He knew personally.

Make any sense?

De Maria

Yes, but a virtuous faith leads to a Divine Charity. Because when we find God (a work in vertuos hope), and when we’ve, as it were, become one (a work of vertuous disipline in faith), our hope is realized, faith is justified we are redeemed and saved.

Thus faith moves to hope which changes to love of God - Don’t you get - THAT’s HIS PLAN, we become LOVING adopted sons of God.

You gott’a Love a God with a sense of humor!!! All you gotta do is Love the Father as a disciplined child e.g., “Yes, Father, thy will be done.”

JoeT

 

[JoeT777]

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.)

It wasn’t for nothing that St. Peter said that there are many things “hard to understand” in St. Paul’s epistles. There are and there are not.

This means there is merit for fortitude in faith (IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE - we ought to get a bonus for figuring this out). St. Thomas lists fortitude as one of the greater virtues. It’s best explained by St. John

2 Corinthians 1:18

But as God is faithful, our word toward you was not yea and nay.

He skillfully overturns a rising objection. For one might say, If after having promised, you have put off coming, and yea is not yea, and nay nay, with you, but what you say now you unsay afterwards, as you did in the case of this Journey: woe is unto us, if all this were the case in the Preaching too. Now lest they should have these thoughts and be troubled thereat, he says, But as God is faithful, our word toward you was not yea and nay. This, says he, was not the case in the Preaching, but only in our travels and journeyings; whereas whatever things we have said in our preaching, these abide steadfast and unmoveable, (for he calls his preaching here, word.) Then he brings proof of this that cannot be gainsaid, by referring all to God. What he says is this; ‘the promise of my coming was my own and I gave that promise from myself: but the preaching is not my own, nor of man, but of God, and what is of God it is impossible should lie.’ Whereupon also he said, God is faithful, that is, true. ‘Mistrust not then what is from Him, for there is nought of man in it.’ 4. And seeing he had said word, he adds what follows to explain what kind of word he means. Of what kind then is it?

2 Corinthians 1:19

For the Son of God, says he, Who was preached among you by us, even by me, and Silvanus, and Timothy, was not yea and nay…

YEA!! I’ll let you finish it. It’s informative. www.newadvent.org/fathers/220203.htm

JoeT

 

[Philthy]

That’s a bit perplexing. What is the difference between the Catholic Teaching that Sacred Scripture is without error and Scripture as an infallible rule of faith?

 

[DavidJoseph]

%between%****Hebrews 5:9
**And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that **obey him;

Christ did not die for all people. Otherwise, there would be no hell. And the fact is that sinners remain in this world. But although God the Father loves them, He doesn’t love them as much as He loves those who obey Christ and in so doing become like Christ.

Your statement that Christ did not die for all people is false and heretical. We’re Catholics, not Calvinists. Christ died for ALL people, but His death won’t do any good for those who choose to reject Him.

 

[clmowry]

Whoa there pardner. We do believe in sola gratia.

Though I like Mr. Akin’s excellent job of couching of Catholic theology in protestant terms, I can’t really accept any term containing “sola”: especially a list of multiple “sola” terms.

If I did I’m pretty sure my brain would turn to goo and seep out of my ears.

Chuck

 

[antoniont1]

First of all, I’m a bit selfish: my intention to post here is because I want replies here to appear in my inbox

Let us as Catholics step back and look again: perhaps we’re all talking about the same thing from different perspectives: justification, salvation, merit, faith, works… Protestants and us have different definitions, hence what we believe about them are different.

Salvation is like an invitation to Heaven.
For Protestants, “saved” means “accepted the invitation” - it’s only the RSVP part. Anything that goes after that is “santification”. Hence their “once saved always saved” (because you “accepted” the invitation)
For us I perceive that “saved” means “attending” - our response is necessary, but there is no merit in it. So what we take as “by” in “by faith and works” is different from the “by” in “by faith alone”

I guess, to God, our differences are just “minor details”. God is probably using Protestants to evangelize, as well as reigniting our desire to do the same.

As a Catholic who has studied about Protestantism a bit, I hope I get my understanding of both sides right…

 

[clmowry]

Let us as Catholics step back and look again: perhaps we’re all talking about the same thing from different perspectives: justification, salvation, merit, faith, works… Protestants and us have different definitions, hence what we believe about them are different.

I think this is undoubtedly true.

The “definitions” not only differ between Catholics and non-Catholics but from person to person.

I would submit to you that a very small percentage of the Christian populaton believes literally in “faith alone.”

For many “faith alone” is practically identical to Catholic teaching. For others it is not even close.

Chuck

 

[benedictus2]

When a Protestant says that justification is by faith alone, the Catholic reflex is to say that justification is by faith and works. However, that response is not completely correct.

Why? Because:
There are three phases of justification.
Justification by the unmerited gift of grace. This is our acceptance of God’s call to repentance.

Justification by faith and works is our cooperation to God’s call and gift of predisposing grace which is faith. During this phase we seek God by doing works of faith and repentance. We also seek to be His children by requesting Baptism.

Justification by the Sacraments, particularly the Sacrament of Baptism. This is the Work of God ALONE. We don’t do anything. We can’t. We can’t wash our soul.

Continuing justification by faith and works. This is the work of the Christian who has been incorporated into the Body of Christ.

We can follow those phases of justification in the explanation of Trent and in Scripture:
The Catholic View of Salvation is actually comprehensive.

I think what you have written here is not quite correct.

There are no stages to justification or sanctification. It is just one process where God gives the initial grace for us to respond. The initial grace is not justification. It is simply an initiative on the part of God who so passionately loves His creation. At the moment of the first response (whether it be by faith or work) we are not justified yet. We can only be said to have been justified when we get to heaven and the process of deification is completed because we have been conformed to the image of Christ.

Till then there is just the process of deification or theosis. We are justified in the eyes of God when we have been** made **just. We are declared just not merely forensically but rather grace has had this ontological effect on the soul such that we become truly just, hence can be declared just.

The Catholic view is not just comprehensive, it does not have any this dichotomy between initial justification and sanctification.

This split was was a result of the hegemony of the nominalist philosophy at the time of the Reformation and to which Luther and Calvin subscribed to heavily.

And this is where the error crept in. And it is an error.

Alister McGrath (who is a Protestant Theologian) calls this split between justification and sanctification a real "theological novum".