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

[bekalc]

Yes it seems to me that he is arguing for double justification.
(Initial by faith alone (and baptism) not something we can earn. In this baptism God pours hope/love into our hearts.

and then final (where works become necessary over the whole life.) Conversion to Christ is important and I think realizing the grace of God is important too…

 

[reen12]

quote: bekalc

Yes it seems to me that he is arguing for double justification.

Thedistinctionlies* in*

*- *“rewards”

vs.

-“increasing” justification.

No “double justification” involved, I think.

Best,

reen12

 

[Ignatius]

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

I agree with Father Cantalamessa entirely.

James says “Faith without out works is dead.”
Paul says "if I should have all faith, so that I could move mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing"

 

[Eireann]

reen12:

quote: Eireann

Perhaps he’s too busy, reading…St. Paul. :tiphat:

quote: reen12

And I, for one, would not wish to claim that reading
St. Paul is - of more import, theologically - than reading
the catechism…

No need for sarcasm,

Maybe the Bible will suffice. James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?

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

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? 15 And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: **

You may not have to adere to the CCC but I do.

 

[El_Catolico]

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.

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. The medieval theologians made a differentiation between justification in James (and Augustine and other ECFs) and justfication in Paul. For Paul, justification was an acquittal before God of past sins. They would refer to the latter as “initial justification.” That cannot be “increased.”

USMC:

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…And if the faith you are referring to does not exclude charity, then it is not “alone”.

I was referring to faith formed by charity, as the medieval scholastics understood it. Martin Luther argued that faith unformed by charity could justify, and I (along with the Council of Trent) reject that position.

I do not think that “faith alone” is a very good formulation. Nor do I believe that it should be used in the liturgy. But it can be interpreted in an orthodox manner. And that is how I meant it.

Jimmy Akin has a useful article on the subject of faith alone. I think you need to read it. You seem to think that it is impossible to interpret the phrase “faith alone” in an orthodox manner.

Robert Bellarmine wrote a list of fathers who had used the phrase “faith alone”:

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. Ad Romanos.

Hilary of Poitiers, Commentarius in Matthaeum

Basil, Hom. de humilitate

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum

Cyril of Alexandria, In Ioannis Evangelium

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8

Theophylact,* Expositio in ep. ad Galatas*

We can also add to that list:

Thedoret, Affectionum curatio

Augustine, De fide et operibus

Marius Victorinus, In ep. Pauli ad Galatas

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. 1 ad Timotheum

Were all these people heretics?

 

[El_Catolico]

USMC:

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.

Do I smell a rad-trad schismatic on this thread?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Merging all 3 threads into one for convenience.

 

[Superstar905]

Michael Francis:

Merging all 3 threads into one for convenience.

Good call, lol

 

[reen12]

quote: El Católico

For Paul, justification was an acquittal before God of past sins.

I…don’t…think…so. :tiphat: That was not his meaning,
in it’s entirety.

In terms of the CC’s view of “justification” :
What do you think Luther was talking about?
What propelled Trent to take up the matter of
“justification” to begin with?
Had it nothing to do with Luther’s position?

Who do you think Trent was contending with?

quote: El Católico

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.

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

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

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*.

And the complexity involved…in these theological “constucts”
“medieval scholastics”] was challenged - with good reason -
by Luther.

What was the plain meaning of…St. Paul.
Not Augustine. Not the medieval scholastics.

To urge me to:

quote: El Catolicao

…study the issues much deeply before making such a sweeping assertion.

apparently means: accept the complexity of the
CC theological constructs - in terms of Trent’s
“meaning” in terms of “justification.”

quote: reen12

What propelled Trent to take up the matter of
“justification” to begin with.

Any light that you can shed on this would be appreciated.

For I’m left with the image of those, assembled at Trent
saying: “Well, what do you say? Let’s talk about
justification.”
Instead of the real “purpose” of the gathering:
“The doctrine of Luther, on justification by faith alone,
must be addressed.”

I look forward to your reply and thanks for taking the
time to address my own observations.

Best,

reen12

 

[tjmiller]

The Holy Father, in the quote cited in the OP, was simply criticizing Neo-Pelagianism.

 

[reen12]

quote: Eireann

No need for sarcasm,

…]You may not have to adere to the CCC but I do.

You’re right.

I apologize for my use of sarcasm.

BTW, “works” are required -in the view of some
Protestant denominations - as obedience to
Christ’s commands. So, as far as I can see,
it’s not a matter of sola fides, no works.
The question is: what do these works “effect”?

Are we saved - by faith in Christ and His salvific act, alone?
As in Christ saying, in instances in the gospels:
"Do you believe that I can do this for you?’
Or are we able to “aid” our own salvation…by our
works?

Best,

reen12

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Superstar905:

I need som help here. Reading this article kind of disturbed me. I know we can’t “earn” our way to salvation, that it is only through the Grace of Christ that we are saved, however, Faith Alone is heresy, without works. Check this out:

Papal preacher tells pope that faith alone will bring salvation

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.

Here is the source:
catholicnews.com/data/briefs/cns/20051216.htm#head14

Oh boy - Apologetics Forum and not my field! Nevertheless, our good works cannot save us…God has no need of our good works, how then can they save us if God does not need them. He desires them, but not need. But our Faith in trust and confidence in God can save us, because God has told us that He will save us which flows from His Loving Mercy of us, and in that in Faith in trustful confidence we rest simply because God has revealed it to us.
But as St. James I think it was pointed out, “Faith without works is dead”…hence our Faith is made acceptable to God through our good works. If I have faith that God will save me but dont care about what I do or say, or think, any old thing will do - then my Faith is empty and dead. If I hear God’s revelation that He will save me, but close my ears to what He asks, then my Faith is selective indeed and useless…nevertheless what can be excluded from God’s Loving Mercy - but not to presume on it.

Peace…Barb

 

[reen12]

quote: BarbaraTherese

But as St. James I think it was pointed out, “Faith without works is dead”…hence our Faith is made acceptable to God through our good works.

I guess I’d take issue with the word “acceptable.”

…our Faith is made acceptable to God through our good works.

If I understand Luther aright, nothing we can do or say or
think makes us “acceptable” to God…that Christ is our
justification and our righteousness…that God “accepts”
us* through* Christ, and not on any “merits” of our own…
including good works. solus Christus

Yet, I suppose one could say:
My works *demonstrate: *both my faith in Christ and His
salvific act…which saves me - and my obedience to His
commands.

It is, from what I understand, one of the main bones of
contention, between some of the Protestant positions
and that of Catholicism.

St. James said: “Faith, without works, is dead.”

The response of a “lively faith” is:

I have works, but they do not save me *or *“increase”
either my ‘righteousness’ or my ‘justification.’
These may increase my ‘reward’ “…store up treasures
for yourself, in heaven…”] but Christ, alone, saves me,
and He is…and continues to be, through eternity… my ‘righteousness.’

Reading St. Paul, I have to agree with this position.

To say that certain works “increase grace” is another
bone of contention. The grace given, by the sacraments,
is said to “increase the life of God, in us.”
My question is: what - in heaven’s name - does that
mean? I’ve know the defintions - for 50 years. But I’ve come
to question the ‘reality’ stated - in this definition.

To say that I am “given grace”…in the sense of the
strength…to carry our His commands…would make
sense. “My flesh is real food…”] Food, for the journey.
Food that gives strength.

Yet “to increase our participation in the life of God”…
I don’t know. Only 1 out of 7 people - on the planet -
gets a “chance” to -----> “increase our participation in the
life of God”?

I would welcome your insights, and the insights of others,
on this.

Best,

reen12

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Hi there Reen…good to cach up with you again on CAF…Reen, I knew I should have stayed out of the Apologetics Forum…
…I am out of my depth and know it!

If I understand Luther aright, nothing we can do or say or
think makes us “acceptable” to God…that Christ is our
justification and our righteousness…that God “accepts”
us* through* Christ, and not on any “merits” of our own…
including good works. solus Christus

I agree with Luther in his theological understanding that nothing can make us acceptable to God. But if I accept Christ, but dismiss his words, do I really accept Christ?

I have works, but they do not save me or “increase”
either my ‘righteousness’ or my ‘justification.’
These may increase my ‘reward’ “…store up treasures
for yourself, in heaven…”] but Christ, alone, saves me,
and He is…and continues to be, through eternity… my ‘righteousness.’

Again, I agree with the theology or theory…but in practise if I accept Christ as my saviour but do not care about what he has asked of us…am I really accepting Christ?

To say that certain works “increase grace” is another
bone of contention. The grace given, by the sacraments,
is said to “increase the life of God, in us.”
My question is: what - in heaven’s name - does that
mean? I’ve know the defintions - for 50 years. But I’ve come
to question the ‘reality’ stated - in this definition.

To say that I am “given grace”…in the sense of the
strength…to carry our His commands…would make
sense. “My flesh is real food…”] Food, for the journey.
Food that gives strength.

Yet “to increase our participation in the life of God”…
I don’t know. Only 1 out of 7 people - on the planet -
gets a “chance” to -----> “increase our participation in the
life of God”?

I must admit Reen that the theology of Sanctifying Grace and an increase of I do have difficulty with (which is not doubt)…but then if I quiver in an Apologetics Forum, then I sure quiver at some of our theology which is completely dark to me and may remain so…it presents to me difficulties, but not doubts since I profess what The Church teaches tho at times it is difficult and defeats me for sure. The theology of Grace while I uphold it is real and exists…is not practically funtional in day to day spirituality (which is the Forum I feel more comfortable with) at least in that being conscious of just how much Sanctifying and Actual Grace I have will contribute to my living a more loving existence.

I am out of my depth as I said Reen in pure apologetics…forgive me for stepping into waters too deep for me for sure!

Cacha Reen…Peace…Barb

 

[reen12]

quote: BarbaraTherese

I am out of my depth as I said Reen in pure apologetics…forgive me for stepping into waters too deep for me for sure!

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

 

[Eireann]

reen12:

quote: Eireann

You’re right.

I apologize for my use of sarcasm.

reen12

No problem, and may the blessings of God be upon you and your’s.

 

[reen12]

Thanks for your kindness, Eireann.

reen

 

[reen12]

Hmmmm…

Perhaps I’m not in the “deep waters” that I thought that
I might be in.

I would like to know:

quote: reen12

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

…]For I’m left with the image of those, assembled at Trent
saying: “Well, what do you say? Let’s talk about
justification.”
Instead of the real “purpose” of the gathering:
“The doctrine of Luther, on justification by faith alone,
must be addressed.”

I look forward to any response that may be offered.

Best,

reen12

I should add that the Council of Trent was part of the
Counter-Reformation, and dealt with other matters, as well -
in addition to the issue of “justification” and “good works.”

 

[Eireann]

reen12:

Hmmmm…

Perhaps I’m not in the “deep waters” that I thought that
I might be in.

Actually I could have said it better before, I think the Fr used a lot of words without actually saying anything.

We don’t need complicated explanations with big elongated words that we can’t even get our mouths around.

Actually I’m swayed more by the posters up above who said Paul was talking about the old law, just like they got confused about the old law of circumcision.

Imaging Jesus preaching like this, He taught in a simple way that even the uneducated like myself could understand.

Anyway what I and another poster put up on James 2:21 is all I want to post, it’s Biblical and after posting something from the Bible there isn’t a lot more that can be said.

I’ll miss this thread. :nope:

 

[reen12]

quote: Eireann

We don’t need complicated explanations with big elongated words that we can’t even get our mouths around.

Ah, but surely our Father in heaven has room - even for
those who tend to think - and express themselves - through
the polysyllabic.
Same is His gift, after all is said and done.

It comes as no surprise, to many, that some individuals
find meaning, in attempting to “decipher” Paul’s meaning,
in given instances - 20 centuries later.

Peter, the fisherman, was confronted by an extremely
gifted individual - Paul - highly conversant in the Mosaic Law,
who had learned at the feet of Gamaliel, one of the foremost
rabbinic authorities of his day.

While Christ put Peter in charge of His Church, He
left it to Paul to…articulate theological realities…in
complex terms.
[John Paul II was a brilliant philosopher - as Benedict
is acknowledged as one of the leading intellects in Europe.]

---

I think it may be thought that an individual who expresses
themselves -through the polysyllabic- cannot have a
childlike mind and heart.

Yet, some of the most brilliant minds, that I have ever known,
had/have such a heart. Not “childish”…rather, childlike.

And, when I saw Benedict XVI, standing on the balconey,
greeting the people, I looked at his eyes and facial
expression and thought: a great intellect, with a childlike heart?
*

“Unless you become as these little children, you shall
not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

The polysyllabic and a childlike heart are not mutually exclusive,
I think.

Best wishes,

reen12*