Merger of 3 threads:Is "Faith Alone" alive and well in some parts of Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Superstar905
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree that when Paul speaks of works of the law that he is talking about only part of the law.

When Paul says that we are not justified by works or by the law, he is referring to any and all kinds of work done by man, not just certain kinds of work. These works include all the moral, civil, and ceremonial laws of the OT as well as any such laws of the age we are now in.

From what I understand, the debate over what “works of the law” actually means goes back at least as far as Jerome and Augustine. Jerome believed that the “works of the law” which will not justify refers only to the ceremonial law. Augustine believed that “works of the law” refers to any ceremonial or moral law.

The Council of Trent seems to me to settle this issue because it does not distinguish between ceremonial or moral law in its decrees on justification. This council makes a firm statement that the works Paul understood as those that do not justify us refers to all and any works, not just particular kinds of works.

For example, in the councils first decree on justification we see:
“If anyone shall say that man can be justifed before God by his own works, which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema” (Session 6, Canon 1). We can see from this declaration that the council made no distinction between works.

I think we all agree that the ceremonial law will not save us so I won’t spend time disputing that but will move on to the moral law.

Let’s take Romans 7:6-8 for example:
**Romans 7:6-8 **
6 But now we are loosed from the law of death wherein we were detained; so that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? God forbid! But I do not know sin, but by the law. For I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

The law that shows us that coveting is sin is taken from the 9th and 10th commandments, which of coruse are part of the moral law and not the ceremonial law.

If anyone is interested in reading more about this matter I would suggest “Not By Faith Alone” by Sungenis or reading the following link:
catholicintl.com/epologe…tion/works1.htm
 
I’m totally with fix and Br Rich on this one. I find nothing wrong at all in what he says.

We are saved totally through our faith and the grace of God. Works are only the natural result of our need to act on the joy from that grace and the infinite love and mercy of God.

That is why St James comments that faith without those works is dead. It’s not that the works save us; it is simply that in the presence of this faith one can do nothing but act on it, and if one is not acting on it the faith can’t be real.

Peace,
 
we are saved by grace alone, through faith. that faith is made evident by our works so, in effect, the works are what allow the grace to be poured out on us, but the works have to spring from a faith for the grace to take hold.
 
40.png
fix:
What is the problem with what he said?
Click to expand...

Nothing 🙂​

 
From the article, I find nothing heterodox about what the priest said. I do however find it odd that a priest would tell something like that to a Pope, however it is certainly not out of line and I don’t know the full context of the story as far as was the priest repremanding the Pope and the Hierarchy for sins perceived or was he just preaching a homily about Grace in line with Catholic doctrine? I don’t see him taking any line of heretical Protestant belief.

If he was just preaching a simple homily about Grace, then he is certainly in line. It kind of reminds me of the ancient Roman Triumph. When the triumphal general would be paraded into town, he had a slave standing behind him holding the victory crown over his head and would constantly say to him, “Remember, you are mortal.” I’m sure our Holy Father would appreciate such an opportunity of humility, as he is the “Servant of the Servants of God.”
 
What are your thoughts?

Catholic Online > International News > International Story
International Story

Faith alone, not deeds, required for salvation, papal preacher tells pontiff
By Cindy Wooden

12/16/2005

CNS

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Even those who spend their lives serving the church must recognize that faith alone will save them, the preacher of the papal household told Pope Benedict XVI and his closest aides.

“Christianity does not start with that which man must do to save himself, but with what God has done to save him,” Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa said in his Dec. 16 Advent meditation.

The preacher told the pope and top Vatican officials that they, like St. Paul, must avoid any temptation to think that the good works they have accomplished will guarantee their salvation.

“Gratuitous justification through faith in Christ is the heart” of St. Paul’s preaching “and it is a shame that this has been practically absent from the ordinary preaching of the church,” he said.

Father Cantalamessa said that the Protestant Reformation debate over the role of faith and works led the Catholic Church to focus so much on the need for the demonstration of faith in actions that it practically ignored the need for faith in the first place.

St. Paul, in his Letter to the Philippians, warned believers of the “mortal danger” of putting their own good works between them and Christ, as if the works would save them, Father Cantalamessa said.

Conversion to the fact that faith in Christ is the only means of salvation “is the conversion most needed by those who already are following Christ and have lived at the service of his church,” the Capuchin said.

“It is a special conversion that does not consist in abandoning the bad, but abandoning the good, in a way,” he said. “It means detaching oneself from everything one has done, repeating to oneself, ‘We are useless servants; we have done only what was required.’”

Father Cantalamessa told a familiar Italian story about the shepherds near Bethlehem going to visit the newborn Jesus, each of them trying to outdo the others with the beauty of the gifts they offered.

One poor shepherd had nothing and was ashamed.

“Mary could not figure out how to accept all the gifts, since she was holding the baby in her arms,” he said. “So, seeing the poor shepherd with his hands free, she handed Jesus to him.”

“Having his hands free was his fortune and it should be ours as well,” Father Cantalamessa said.

Copyright (c) 2005 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
 
I would certainly hope NOT, for love is active not passive.

The grace of JESUS flows through us, it does not stop in the branch but continues on as works. It is His grace therefore it is His works we accomplish, not our own, but we must cooperate with that grace, that is to love the giver of the gift.

We no longer seem to recognize the giver of the gift. Rejecting the gift, we lust, instead of love one another.
 
Epistle of ST James

2:18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without works; and I will show thee, by works, my faith. 19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

CCC 1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it. But “faith apart from works is dead”: when it is deprived of hope and love,** faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.**
Matt 25:41

Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

Looks like these people had faith, but not a lot of works.

Hope this priest isn’t turning into a heretic.
 
40.png
thistle:
From the other thread. Read the whole report!!

here is a report of the whole teaching:

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=81777

**In particular the papal preacher says:

One is not saved by good works, but one cannot be saved without good works.**
Click to expand...
Thanks Thistle. 👍

After reading I’m not impressed, the more he explains the more he confuses. :confused:
For me he hasn’t clarified anything, only adding to confusion, so we’ll dismiss the Doctors of the Church for this new revelation. :cool:
 
Justification by faith (even faith alone) is “alive and well” within the Catholic Church, because it is a part of Catholic doctrine. Having read Father Cantalamessa’s sermons, everything in it is perfectly orthodox.

But (and I have told other Protestants this) you would be mistaken to assume that Father Cantalamessa understands justification by faith alone in the same way that Protestants do. Fr. Cantalamessa does not, for example, pit faith and the Sacraments against each other. His sermons reflect the Pauline meaning of justification by faith, but not necessarily the Protestant meaning as developed by John Calvin.
 
quote: thistle, quoting the article on the “papal preacher”
“Gratuitous justification through faith in Christ is the heart” of St. Paul’s preaching “and it is a shame that this has been practically absent from the ordinary preaching of the church,” he said."
Click to expand...
Go for it! Father Cantalamessa…

The position of some Protestant denominations:
“lively faith” ----> works do not* save *me, but I may be lost -
if works are not undertaken - in obedience to Christ’s commands.

Catholicism holds, as well, that Christ saves me - in an
act of “gratuitous justification.”
A distinction needs to be drawn, however, between the position of some Protestant denominations and that of Catholicism - in terms of justification:

-I cannot “increase” my justification,* by my works.* “lively faith”]

-which position was rejected by Trent.
[Canon 24 of the VI Session of the Council of Trent] :

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT6.HTM#2

[Anathema ! ]

How one can read St. Paul and come away thinking that
one can “increase” one’s justification - is past understanding,
IMO.

That one can increase one’s “reward,” yes.
-In My Father’s house there are many mansions…

That one can increase one’s “justification”…hardly, I think.
I assess that the CC is in error, on this point.
Those assembled at Trent confused ‘reward’ with ‘justification.’:tiphat:

A simple- but profound error - of conflating the two.

Best,

reen12
 
El Católico:
Justification by faith (even faith alone) is “alive and well” within the Catholic Church, because it is a part of Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can share with us exactly how faith alone justifies. I will be interested in reading your explanation given the fact that faith alone does not, in any way, justify. Faith “alone” excludes charity, and as such is dead faith. Charity is what justifies the soul, not faith alone. We must have faith and charity. Charity is impossible without faith, and faith without charity is dead.

“if I should have all faith, so that I could move mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2)

And if the faith you are referring to does not exclude charity, then it is not “alone”. Why, then, use a term that was explicitly anathematized at the council of Trent? The reason is obvious: it is in order to “win over” the Protestants by using their heretical terminology. Haven’t we had enough compromise with the heretics in hopes of gaining their approval?

Isn’t that what resulted in the new Protestantized form of Mass - the Novus Ordo Mass? It was precisely this same spirit of comptomize that resulted in the new form of Mass.

At the time the new Mass was being formulated, the following was written in the official Vatican newspaper, L’ Osservatore Romano.

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything that could constitute the slightest stumbling block or displeasure for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants” (March 16, 1965).

So, the intent of the new Mass was to strip from it all that offended the heretics? And this is supposed to end in an orthodox Mass?

Then, when the new Mass was complete, the same newspaper compromisingly repoted the following:

“Liturgical reform has taken a notable step forward on the path of ecumenism. It has come closer to the liturgical reforms of the Lutheran Church” (L’Osservatore Romano, October 13, 1967).

It should be noted, of course, that the explicit intent of Luther’s liturgical reforms was to destroy the Catholic Church.

Martine Luther: “When we have overthrown the Mass we shall have overthrown the whole Papacy with it. For it is upon the Mass, as upon a rock, that the Papacy rests - with its bishoprics, its colleges, its altars, its ministers, and its doctrines. All these cannot fail to fall once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass crumbles to the dust” (Martin Luther, Against Henry King of England, Werke, Vol 10, pg 220).

Martin Luther: "I believe and confess that the popish Mass is an invention and ordinance of man, a sacrifice of Antichrist… and that it is a stinking and infected sepulchre, which hideth and covereth the merit of the blood of Christ; and therefore ought the Mass to be abolished”.

Luther’s express intent in “reforming” the Mass was to abolish the Mass and destroy the Church. And in a spirit of compromise with the heretics, the Church reformed the liturgy so that it was brought closer to the reforms of Luther?

“Liturgical reform has taken a notable step forward on the path of ecumenism. It has come closer to the liturgical reforms of the Lutheran Church” (L’Osservatore Romano, October 13, 1967).

In the above quote, be sure to substitute the word “apostasy” for ecumenism. Then it makes sense. God help us.
 
40.png
reen12:
That one can increase one’s “justification”…hardly, I think.
I assess that the CC is in error, on this point.
Those assembled at Trent confused ‘reward’ with ‘justification.’:tiphat:

A simple- but profound error - of conflating the two.
Click to expand...
Father Cantalamessa… can quote until the cows come home, heres all we need to know.

CCC 1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it. But “faith apart from works is dead”: when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.

Thank God he doesn’t have the final say, he isn’t the first and he probably won’t the last to bring up this, maybe he should read his Catechism.
 
bene7 said:
What are your thoughts?

Removed unnecessary long quote of article as per Forum Rules
Click to expand...

“Faith alone” may have a bad sound, but there is a sense in whih it is perfectly true.​

I agree with Father Cantalamessa entirely.

Or is conversion to Christ not necessary ? ##
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## “Faith alone” may have a bad sound, but there is a sense in whih it is perfectly true.

I agree with Father Cantalamessa entirely.

Or is conversion to Christ not necessary ? ##
Click to expand...

Yeah. One might say faith alone initially justifies.
 
40.png
Redbandito:
Yeah. One might say faith alone initially justifies.
Click to expand...
…as long as it’s accompanied by a valid baptism. This is our initial justification - totally unmerited in any way. That is why infant baptism is so beautiful and such a powerful display of God’s love, welcoming us into His family.

From that point on, we grow in our justification by faith working through love.
 
quote: Eireann
Thank God he doesn’t have the final say, he isn’t the first and he probably won’t the last to bring up this, maybe he should read his Catechism.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he’s too busy, reading…St. Paul. :tiphat:

quote: reen12
How one can read St. Paul and come away thinking that
one can “increase” one’s justification - is past understanding,
IMO
…Those assembled at Trent confused ‘reward’ with ‘justification.’

A simple- but profound error - of conflating the two.
Click to expand...
And I, for one, would not wish to claim that reading
St. Paul is - of more import, theologically - than reading
the catechism… :rolleyes:

Best,

reen12
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top