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

[Mickey]

reen12:

one can be “schooled” yet of a child-like heart.

 

[reen12]

Thanks, Mickey,

reen

 

[bene7]

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.

Thank you for posting this url. But why am I not surprised that on all that Fr. Cantalamessa wrote you only focused on this? I, for one, am amazed that this sermon came from a Catholic clergyman. Based on this one sermon he seems to have honestly captured the essence of the Apostle Paul’s teaching justification by faith (in Christ) alone. And states that this message did not originate with the “Reformers” like Luther, but was actually the message of the early Church (beginning with the Apostles) to a world completely void of saving faith and to those who drifted from it (like Paul’s letter to the Galatians):

"When one speaks of faith in St. Paul one thinks spontaneously of the great theme of justification by faith in Christ. And on this we wish to concentrate our attention, not to outline the umpteenth discussion on the topic, but to receive his consoling message. I was saying in the first meditation that there currently exists a need for kerygmatic preaching (i.e., preaching the gospel of Christ in the manner of the early Church), suitable to incite faith where it has never existed, or where it has died. Gratuitous justification by faith in Christ is the heart of this type of preaching, and it is a shame that this is, in turn, practically absent from ordinary preaching in the Church" (the Catholic church).

Strong words by a man intimately connected to Rome, and I would say bold words by this man before his Pontiff. Fr. Cantalamessa points out the response of the Council of Trent to the Reformer’s insistence on faith alone, for the place of good works in salvation, but stresses that from that point on the hierarchy of Rome focused almost exclusively on good works and one’s own personal contribution to salvation. The result being that the majority of Catholics having never heard (or preached) from them Paul’s message of gratuitous justification by faith:

"In this respect something strange has occurred. To the objections raised by the reformers, the Council of Trent had given a Catholic response, that there is a place for faith and for good works, each one, it was understood, in its place. One is not saved by good works, but one cannot be saved without good works. Nevertheless, from this moment in which the Protestants insisted unilaterally on faith, Catholic preaching and spirituality ended up accepting the nearly exclusive and thankless work of calling to mind the need for good works and of one’s personal contribution to salvation. The result is that the great majority of Catholics have lived entire lives without having ever heard a direct announcement of gratuitous justification by faith, without too many "buts."

Cantalmessa then goes on to state that Luther only “rediscovered” what Augustine had already known and written based on Paul’s teaching.

"I said “rediscovered,” because much earlier than him St. Augustine had written: “The ‘righteousness of God’ is used in the sense of our being made righteous by his gift (‘iustitia Dei, qua iusti eius munere efficimur’), and ‘the salvation of the Lord’ (Psalm 3:9), in that we are saved by him.”[2]

What I find extremely fascinating about this man is that he grasps the true uniqueness of true Christianity. The very same thing I myself have expressed on this forum:

“Here is the novelty that distinguishes the Christian religion from any other. Any other religion draws out for man a path to salvation by means of practical observations and intellectual speculations, promising him, as a final prize salvation and illumination, but leaving him substantially alone in achieving the task. Christianity does not begin with what man must do to save himself, but rather with what God has done to save him. The order is reversed.”

Based solely on Fr. Cantalamessa’s sermon I would say that, maybe, just maybe, the Apostle Paul’s original, simple message of justification by faith alone might be still be alive somewhere in all the complexity of Catholicism.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[reen12]

quote: bene7

The result being that the majority of Catholics having never heard (or preached) from them Paul’s message of gratuitous justification by faith…

and

quote: bene7

---

Christianity does not begin with what man must do to save himself

, but rather with what God has done to save him. The order is reversed." *

Exactly.

This puts me in mind of Christ saying, in given instances:
"Do you believe that I can do this for you?’

Thank you for stating the above so clearly.

reen12

 

[BarbaraTherese]

reen12:

quote: BarbaraTherese

Well, I’m kind of up to my neck in deep waters, too!

El Católico wrote such an excellent post [IMO], that I may
end up burning rubber, backing off my position - with as
much speed as I can muster. [post #44].

I will wait to see - if I can hold my own - on these issues.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Best,

reen

Hi Reen…I recognize well that Apologetics is your gift and not at all mine!
With that insight, I’ll bow out of this thread Reen…cowardly? Yes!

Regards Reen…and Peace!

 

[Eireann]

Christianity does not begin with what man must do to save himself, but rather with what God has done to save him. The order is reversed."

Agreed, there is buts though, yes Christ saves, but he would need to clarify that if we believe in Christ but
continue to sin, then faith is useless.

James 2:14** What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?**

James 2:17** So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.**

James 2:26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.

Cor 1:13 If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; 5 Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;

13 And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.

Here

Definately my last post on the subject.

 

[bene7]

reen12:

Exactly.

This puts me in mind of Christ saying, in given instances:
"Do you believe that I can do this for you?’

Yes, the essence of true Christian faith, and what Paul calls “obedience of faith among the Gentiles, for His name sake” (Rom. 1:5). Do you believe that Christ did it??? Notice how often in the Gospel of John (rightly said by many to be the “Genesis” of the N.T.) Jesus uses the words “believe” and “eternal life” together?

Thank you for stating the above so clearly.
reen12

Don’t thank me, I only quoted Fr. Cantalamessa.

Blessings,
Bene

 

[reen12]

quote: bene7

Don’t thank me, I only quoted Fr. Cantalamessa.

True!

reen12

 

[reen12]

Once again: :tiphat:

Given Protestant denominations do not teach that “works”
are “un-necessary.”

The response to James’ “Faith, without works, is dead.”

is :

"lively" faith is* demonstrated* - through works [charity.]

Works are done in *obedience *to Christ’s commands…
and therefore charity is expressed through those works.

The theological difference is this:

-do my works ‘charity’] aid my salvation? “increase”
my justification and righteousness?
-or is Christ, alone, my salvation, my righteousness?
solus Christus

The argument is not - for many Protestants -
faith OR charity…but whether these works
of charity “help” *effect *my salvation…or, is my
salvation through Christ - alone. solus Christus

That is why Paul could say: “Work out your salvation
with fear and trembling.” --------> if you do not obey
Christ, your salvation is forfeit. But that salvation is
in and through Christ - and a lifetime of “good works”
will not “save” me.

Christ is my:

• justification
• salvation

------>He is my ‘righteousness,’ now and through all eternity.

That is the argument - not “works of charity” are not “needed.”

---

Do my works help effect my salvation?
The key work here, is: “effect”

I hold that the position one acknowledges to be the case:

-“works” help effect my salvation

as opposed to:

-Christ* is* my salvation - and works are a matter of obedience,
and do nothing to effect my salvation

influence mightily, my “relationship” with Christ.

Once accept that He is my salvation - and gratitude,
love and astonishment -at His mercy - fill me with
peace and calm. The “work” has be done…by Christ.
No “fretting” over "have I ‘done’ enough to “get” to heaven.
Follow His commands [charity], and spend eternity -
praising our Savior for His work…not mine.

That I will be rewarded - for how closely I followed His
commands -is beyond question, I think:
“Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven.”
[the fruit of our works, in obedience to Him.]
This is simple justice.

Yet the sole reason I will be “in heaven” is…Christ and
His work…not mine.

He is my righteousness, my justification and my salvation.
Works do nothing…to effect my salvation.

reen12

I am acutely aware that the term theological difference,
may, in this case, connote “heresy.”

 

[Mickey]

reen12:

Do my works help effect my salvation?

**"When Scripture says, ‘He will reward every man according to his works’ (Matt. 16:27), do not imagine that works in themselves merit either hell or the Kingdom. On the contrary, Christ rewards each man according to whether his works are done with faith or without faith in Himself; and He is not a dealer bound by contract, but God our Creator and Redeemer. **
St. Mark the Ascetic

 

[reen12]

Hi, Mickey.

Oh, good. Maybe you would consider replying, to the following:

quote: reen12

…how does the CC view “righteousness”
“justification”…in the sense of “correcting”…Luther.

---

I guess my concern is that Father Cantalamessa is correct,
in his observation:

“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.

Do you have a thought on this?

Perhaps the theological distinction has to do with the “imputed” righteouness position?

Thanks,

reen

 

[reen12]

[contd.]

I must say, “imputed” righteousness…as opposed to
an “ontological” change…has always given me…pause.

reen12

 

[Mickey]

reen12:

…how does the CC view “righteousness”
“justification”…in the sense of “correcting”…Luther.

Alas, I could not speak to this subject intelligently because I am not particularly informed regarding Luther’s stance on “righteousness” and “justification” and how it differs from the Catholic understanding.

Sorry reen.

 

[reen12]

No problem. I appreciated the quote from St. Mark the Ascetic.

Best regards,

reen

 

[reen12]

I’m ploughing thru this interminable article on “justification,”
trying to comprehend what Trent - meant by same, in
relation to the following:

quote: El Católico

You need to study the issues much deeply before making such a sweeping assertion.

The Fathers at Trent were not talking about the type of justification that Paul wrote about it his letters (words have multiple meanings, keep in mind). They were talking about justification in its Augustinian, transformationist sense, as St. James and the medieval scholastics understood the word. In this sense, justification is roughly understood as the participation in the life of grace, which certainly can be “increased.”

But if you were to ask the Council of Trent about what Paul meant when he used the word “justification,” they would have given a different response.

Oh, my achin’ head.

As I say: if anyone could shed light on:

quote: reen12

…how does the CC view “righteousness”
“justification”…in the sense of “correcting”…Luther.

I would be grateful.

For:

quote: reen12

And, if the CC, at Trent, was alluding to:

quote: El Católico

“…justification in its Augustinian, transformationist sense, as St. James and the medieval scholastics understood the word.”

then:

quote: reen12

…who exactly were they “anathematizing” ?

And it matters little -in what sense Augustine or the medieval
theologians “viewed” justification…what did St. Paul
say? That was Luther’s* point*.

reen12

 

[RealEstateCarol]

Ephesians 2:8&9
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Romans 4:5
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

John 6:47
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Philippians 3:9
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 John 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

 

[hunter2]

I remember this being one of the embarrassing parts of Christianity when I was growing up. It looked like we were saying that if person A did acts A in his life, and person B also did acts A, only the person that believed in Jesus would go to heaven. In fact, it was implied that Person A could do more charity and good works that person B, but still not make the cut. Of course this can’t be right. That would be calling god a malevolent and capricious monster who craved attention and adoration more than goodness and kindness.

 

[Holly3278]

I sure hope not. The doctrine of salvation by “faith alone” is a Protestant heresy. I would hope that Protestant heresies are not alive and well in parts of the Catholic Church!

 

[NotWorthy]

I remember this being one of the embarrassing parts of Christianity when I was growing up. It looked like we were saying that if person A did acts A in his life, and person B also did acts A, only the person that believed in Jesus would go to heaven. In fact, it was implied that Person A could do more charity and good works that person B, but still not make the cut. Of course this can’t be right. That would be calling god a malevolent and capricious monster who craved attention and adoration more than goodness and kindness.

I’m not sure about your conclusion. Did Jesus not say, “No one comes to the Father except through me”. What if person A did it simply for the adoration of his fellow men. If he’s only looking for the adulation of his fellow men, why should he get more than that?

 

[hunter2]

I’m not sure about your conclusion. Did Jesus not say, “No one comes to the Father except through me”. What if person A did it simply for the adoration of his fellow men. If he’s only looking for the adulation of his fellow men, why should he get more than that?

Because person A did NOT do it “simple for the adoration of his fellow men”. He did it because he felt it was the right thing to do.
You quote Jesus. Either Jesus did not mean what you think he meant. Or Jesus never said that. Or Jesus was mistaken. Or Jesus was telling us that god is immoral.