My Response to Angry Anti Catholic

[jonnyz]

CARose:

…

Actually, I think this is where you misunderstand the Catholic teaching on works and their relation to salvation / justification. Our works are ways that we are sanctified and bring others to sanctification. We grow in holiness through our works, we learn to conform ourselves to the will of God through our works.

CARose

There is no excuse for being rude/impolite, many people feel if they dont agree with a belief, they can be disrespectfull. I will try to share what an “evangelical” view is of the works issue and why we disagree. (i think i agree with a good amount of evangelical teachings but prolly not 100%).

The catechism says #2025. “We can have merit in God’s sight only because of God’s free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration. Man’s merit is due to God.” We read the Bible and see verses like Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Titus 3:5. Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us. Its hard to reconcile what the catechism says and what the verse says. Its like the CC is teaching you have a part in that justification. Another example…
#1521 “Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus.” and then the Bible says… Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.
One more…
#618 “The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the ‘one mediator between God and men.’ But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, ‘the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery’ is offered to all man.
The Bible… 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.
All i am saying is, its hard to reconcile both. Look at it from our side. Maybe both ways work?

 

[mercygate]

jonnyz:

There is no excuse for being rude/impolite, many people feel if they dont agree with a belief, they can be disrespectfull. I will try to share what an “evangelical” view is of the works issue and why we disagree. (i think i agree with a good amount of evangelical teachings but prolly not 100%).

The catechism says #2025. “We can have merit in God’s sight only because of God’s free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration. Man’s merit is due to God.” We read the Bible and see verses like Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Titus 3:5. Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us. Its hard to reconcile what the catechism says and what the verse says. Its like the CC is teaching you have a part in that justification. Another example…
#1521 “Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus.” and then the Bible says… Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.
One more…
#618 “The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the ‘one mediator between God and men.’ But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, ‘the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery’ is offered to all man.
The Bible… 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.
All i am saying is, its hard to reconcile both. Look at it from our side. Maybe both ways work?

To say that both ways work is a hopeful attempt but something of a cop-out.

The reconciliation, for Catholics, lies in distinguishing between “works of the law” or “works of righteousness,” which cannot save, and works prompted by the grace of God to which we respond in love: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but** faith** working through love. (Gal 5:6) These works participate in the saving work of Christ. We are not saved by our works, but we are sanctified by them.

Another confusing issue here is “merit.” The merit attributed by God to us in our response to his grace is “congruent” merit – merit credited to us by God when our actions are in accord, or congruent, with his will. This congruent merit is entirely defined by, and dependent upon, the “condign” or “worthy” merit of Jesus Christ, which is co-equal with that of the Father.

If you read the passages you have cited from the Catechism through the lens of our participation in the life of Christ – since we are “in him and he in us” – they make a lot more sense and in no way do they contradict the scriptural verses you have quoted.

 

[kaycee]

Fiat:

Kaycee:
If you are referring to the Catholic Church specifically, I would argue that belief in Jesus is, always has been, and always will be enough. We just disagree with non-Catholics as to what “belief” is, exactly.

You have a right to argue your belief but your conclusion can never be other than what the magesterium says under penalty of anathema.

Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, On Faith, Chapter III. Found in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York:Harper, 1877), Volume II, pp. 244-245).

For most Protestants, belief is simply some mental conclusion. For Catholics, belief is a life changing event that takes possession not only of our mind, but also of our heart, soul, and strength, thereby leading us to action.

I would say that True salvation from GOD has always been a life changing experience. I would say the vast majority of evangelicals would agree. Mental assent saves no one. I think you meant non evangelical protestants, have some kind of mental assent alone. We consider these dead liberal churches. Having been raised Catholic and gone thru 12 years of Catholic school I found the vast majority of Catholics had maybe mental assent, most were catholics out of parental habit and very likely to say that being a good person saves you. Peter Kreeft’s affirms this saying 95% of his Boston College students say the same.

Peace <><

 

[Sarah_Jane]

kaycee:

Peter Kreeft’s affirms this saying 95% of his Boston College students say the same.

Do you have a reference for this?

 

[Fiat]

You have a right to argue your belief but your conclusion can never be other than what the magesterium says under penalty of anathema.

Kaycee:
Thanks for the response. Certainly I as a Catholic must assent to the teachings of the magesterium. Did my post suggest that I do not?

I would say that True salvation from GOD has always been a life changing experience. I would say the vast majority of evangelicals would agree. Mental assent saves no one. I think you meant non evangelical protestants, have some kind of mental assent alone.

My position is aimed at Christians who deny sacramental graces. For us as Catholics, grace is conveyed to us objectively through the sacraments. For those Christians who deny any and all sacraments, their experience of grace must by necessity be limited to the subjective experiences of what they believe they are attaining.

Likewise, I agree that there are many self-proclaimed Catholics who are Catholic largely because of cultural reasons. This fact doesn’t deny the truth of the Catholic Church, though.

Fiat

 

[jonnyz]

mercygate:

To say that both ways work is a hopeful attempt but something of a cop-out.

The reconciliation, for Catholics, lies in distinguishing between “works of the law” or “works of righteousness,” which cannot save, and works prompted by the grace of God to which we respond in love: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but** faith** working through love. (Gal 5:6) These works participate in the saving work of Christ. We are not saved by our works, but we are sanctified by them.

Another confusing issue here is “merit.” The merit attributed by God to us in our response to his grace is “congruent” merit – merit credited to us by God when our actions are in accord, or congruent, with his will. This congruent merit is entirely defined by, and dependent upon, the “condign” or “worthy” merit of Jesus Christ, which is co-equal with that of the Father.

If you read the passages you have cited from the Catechism through the lens of our participation in the life of Christ – since we are “in him and he in us” – they make a lot more sense and in no way do they contradict the scriptural verses you have quoted.

Thank you for this response! I am glad to see we agree that works does not “save” a person. So what you are saying is the works we do take part in are out of love by prompting of “grace” aka “the Holy Spirit”? And since “it is no longer i that liveth but Christ that liveth in me” its in a way not the person doing the works but Christ?

 

[mercygate]

jonnyz:

Thank you for this response! I am glad to see we agree that works does not “save” a person. So what you are saying is the works we do take part in are out of love by prompting of “grace” aka “the Holy Spirit”? And since “it is no longer i that liveth but Christ that liveth in me” its in a way not the person doing the works but Christ?

Yes. Even our response to grace is a grace. However, the mercy of God is wide and deep. Thus, our “working in love” is merit, indeed, under the merit of Christ. If the salvific work of Christ has merit, then our participation in his will must also have merit if only because we work in love according to his will.

I believe the faith/works brou-ha-ha between Catholics and Protestants is in large measure a confusion based on a Protestant misunderstanding that Catholic teaching is “works righteousness.” Even Protestants who really think about it do not believe that faith alone – that is, without love, without patience, without all the other things that are encompassed by a living faith – does the trick. Even fundamentalist Protestants claim that “true” faith produces works of love, and that by the works you know the faith is “real.” That is not so very far away from orthodox teaching, is it?

 

[kaycee]

Sarah Jane:

Do you have a reference for this?

Its been a good 10 years since i read but was able to find it.

I mixed it up a bit in my head but was not too far off. Here is the quote from the book Kreeft’s Fundamentals of the faith, page 15 "Fewer than 5 percent of my Catholic-educated students can explain why it is not a contradiction to call God both one and three, or Christ both divine and human. They have never even heard of the distinction between person and nature. Many are astonished at the very idea of giving proofs for the existence of God or for the immortality of the soul. Most shocking of all, well over three-quarters of all the “educated” Catholic college students I have taught do not know, after twelve years of catechism classes, how to get to heaven? Their answer to that question is usually something like “be sincere” or “try your best” or “don’t hurt people” or “work for peace” or “have a nice day” or some such trmpet blast. They rarely even mention Jesus when asked that question.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

kaycee:

Its been a good 10 years since i read but was able to find it.

I mixed it up a bit in my head but was not too far off. Here is the quote from the book Kreeft’s Fundamentals of the faith, page 15 "Fewer than 5 percent of my Catholic-educated students can explain why it is not a contradiction to call God both one and three, or Christ both divine and human. They have never even heard of the distinction between person and nature. Many are astonished at the very idea of giving proofs for the existence of God or for the immortality of the soul. Most shocking of all, well over three-quarters of all the “educated” Catholic college students I have taught do not know, after twelve years of catechism classes, how to get to heaven? Their answer to that question is usually something like “be sincere” or “try your best” or “don’t hurt people” or “work for peace” or “have a nice day” or some such trmpet blast. They rarely even mention Jesus when asked that question.

Thanks for the reference.

But don’t forget that Peter Kreeft trusts the Church’s teaching because he’s a convert to the Catholic Church. (He was Protestant - Calvinist I think).

 

[kaycee]

Fiat:

Kaycee:
Thanks for the response. Certainly I as a Catholic must assent to the teachings of the magesterium. Did my post suggest that I do not?

My position is aimed at Christians who deny sacramental graces. For us as Catholics, grace is conveyed to us objectively through the sacraments. For those Christians who deny any and all sacraments, their experience of grace must by necessity be limited to the subjective experiences of what they believe they are attaining.
Fiat

I was responding to your statement below which sounds to evangelicals like Faith in Jesus alone. Your position above confirms that Faith in Jesus means tapping the treasury of merit via the sacraments in the Catholic church only.

Originally Posted by Fiat
If you are referring to the Catholic Church specifically, I would argue that belief in Jesus is, always has been, and always will be enough. We just disagree with non-Catholics as to what “belief” is, exactly.

 

[kaycee]

mercygate:

Yes. Even our response to grace is a grace. However, the mercy of God is wide and deep. Thus, our “working in love” is merit, indeed, under the merit of Christ. If the salvific work of Christ has merit, then our participation in his will must also have merit if only because we work in love according to his will.

I believe the faith/works brou-ha-ha between Catholics and Protestants is in large measure a confusion based on a Protestant misunderstanding that Catholic teaching is “works righteousness.” Even Protestants who really think about it do not believe that faith alone – that is, without love, without patience, without all the other things that are encompassed by a living faith – does the trick. Even fundamentalist Protestants claim that “true” faith produces works of love, and that by the works you know the faith is “real.” That is not so very far away from orthodox teaching, is it?

It is Faith Alone! Saving Faith always produces good works, BUT it IS the Faith that saves! Even 1% works to 99% faith destroys grace! Grace is Unmerited favor! There still exists an impassible chasm if works of righteousness are involved as well as boasting.

 

[Fiat]

kaycee:

I was responding to your statement below which sounds to evangelicals like Faith in Jesus alone. Your position above confirms that Faith in Jesus means tapping the treasury of merit via the sacraments in the Catholic church only.

Kaycee:
Thanks for the response. The teaching of the Catholic Church is not that grace is limited to the sacraments of the Catholic Church, but that the sacraments are objective and normative means of conveying grace.

I am a convert to the Catholic Church and when I was a protestant, I was raised to believe that a church is really nothing more than a political structure. Therefore, it was convenient to see the Christian life as being separate and distinct from a church. As Catholics, though, we see the Church not simply as a political structure but as the Body of Christ. Christ unites Himself to the Church in very certain terms, particularly when He tells us the first leaders in His Church, the apostles, that he who hears them hears Him. So, it’s impossible for us as Catholics to say that the sacraments are not Christ Himself, and certainly the Sacrament of Communion.

Peace
Fiat

 

[CARose]

kaycee:

It is Faith Alone! Saving Faith always produces good works, BUT it IS the Faith that saves! Even 1% works to 99% faith destroys grace! Grace is Unmerited favor! There still exists an impassible chasm if works of righteousness are involved as well as boasting.

Kaycee,

I’m sorry but you’ve really missed Christ’s point on this one. Certainly we are not meant to boast of our works, even to the point that the right hand should not know what the left is doing so as not to boast of our righteousness, but faith without works is dead. So how does one reconcile these teachings. The Catholic Church, as given to us by Christ, to help us in interpreting the Truth of the Lord, helps us to understand these things.

Remember the Egyptian Eunich who couldn’t study scripture because he didn’t have a teacher. The bible tells us that the Church is the pillar and the bulwarks (or foundation, depending upon your translation) of the Truth, not the bible. The Bible is absolutely the Inspired Word of God, but infallibility does not reside in a book which is then read by frail human beings. Infallibility is with the teaching authority given by Christ to his bride the Church.

As for salvation, we are saved by Grace Alone, not Faith alone. Faith alone would be placing our salvation within our own doing, and this is as wrong as suggesting we are saved by works alone. It is not through my own actions or thoughts that I will be saved, but because God has continuously showered upon me the grace necessary for my salvation. Christ died for my sins, all of them, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I need to accept his gift and I do so through my actions of Faith and Works. I accept his desire that I live according to his will and do the best I can as his humble and unworthy servant to live my life in the example of Christ.

Unfortunately I am nowhere near where I’d like to be, and for that I have the sacrament of confession and the building my strength in the sacrament of communion. With the Most Holy Eucharist as my daily bread, I seek the strength of Christ to be with me throughout the day.

I will pray that you open yourself to Christ where ever he leads you and that you strive to live according to the best plan that God has set out for you.

God Bless,

CARose

 

[NotWorthy]

kaycee:

It is Faith Alone! Saving Faith always produces good works, BUT it IS the Faith that saves! Even 1% works to 99% faith destroys grace! Grace is Unmerited favor! There still exists an impassible chasm if works of righteousness are involved as well as boasting.

Kaycee,
Three Questions:

If we are saved by faith alone, then do we need to love in order to be saved? If so, then we are not saved by faith alone, are we? We are saved by faith and love—which Catholics refer to as faith working through love (cf. Gal. 5:6). If a person says we do not need love in order to be saved, then he is saying we can get to heaven without loving God or our fellow man—a patently ridiculous position to take. Also, if faith alone saves us, faith without love, why does 1 Corinthians 13:13 say that love is greater than faith? After all, if salvation is the greatest thing we can achieve, and it is by faith alone that we achieve salvation, then faith should be greater than love. But the Bible says differently.

If you have faith, but have not works, can your faith save you? If yes, then doesn’t that contradict Scripture (cf. Jas. 2:14–17)? If no, then it’s not faith alone that saves us.

Christ redeemed all men with his death on the cross. In other words, he paid the price for all men’s sins. Yet not all men are saved. What is the difference between those who are merely redeemed and those who are redeemed and saved? Is it something Jesus did, or is it something each saved individual does? If it’s something Christ did, then why aren’t all men saved? After all, Scripture says he desires that all men be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:3–4). But if it’s something the individual believer did, then isn’t that a work? The point here is that the believer has to “do” something in order to be saved. The difference between the believer and the unbeliever is not something Jesus did; it is something the believer did that the unbeliever didn’t do: The former believed, by the grace of God, but he had to cooperate with that grace. He had to do something or else he would not have been “saved.”

NotWorthy

 

[ICXCNIKA]

I never heard back from this fellow. Oh well. I never heard anything from the fellow in Yahoo! chat room who told me that Catholics aren’t Christian. I invited him to email me so we could discuss it. He said he would and that’s the last I heard of him.

ICXCNIKA:

— Tony wrote:

**I learned, after over 40 years and generations of ****my ****family, not to pray to ****dead people, baptize infants, repeatedly crucify ****Jesus, believe in the false ****promise of wearing a scapular and all the other ****lies ****taught by the catholic ****cult and I am so sorry we wasted all that time ****Never being taught of His salvation through Him alone. Not your pope, ****cardinals, bishops and priests ****and the sometimes seemingly endless line of lost ****sheep. I finally read the **Bible, not the catholic bible, but the real inerrant Word of God Himself where He resides. I learned that I’m a priest after all and didn’t even have to join your club who molest countless hordes of children to become one. I learned that I am a Saint too, having accepted Him in the Holy Trinity.

Shame on you misdirected, misinformed souls. Rebuild the catholic culture? Better you should read His Word, accept your Salvation that ONLY comes from and through Him and stop following men in robes.

Follow Jesus and learn as I did…that practicing Catholicism and being saved are diametrically opposed.

Open this link if you dare know the truth: gnfc.org/

May God bless you and all the other catholics mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses

**(Awake!), seventh day adventists, members of the church of Christ boston, muslims, and the hordes who can’t and won’t read, don’t hear or see and don’t, won’t follow Him. **

One more little detail…He has a special place for those who teach and lead people astray.

From: Joseph > To: Tony > Subject: Re: I’m sorry

Thank you for your comments. I will check out www.gnfc.org Please keep me in your prayers.

Jesus Christ is Lord.

Tony wrote:

**Thank you for your heart and please keep me in your prayers as well. I do a **horrible job of witnessing to Catholics. Having been an altar boy and devout member of the church for 40 years…and almost a priest isn’t easy for me.

God bless you, Joseplh.

From: Joseph> To: Tony

I will pray for you.

 

[Kristina_P]

ICXCNIKA:

I finally read the

**Bible, not the catholic bible, but the real inerrant Word of God Himself where He resides. **
Whoa, I’m not even Catholic and I see a serious problem here. It’s one thing to disagree with the deuterocanonicals being in the Bible; it’s quite another to suggest that God Himself dwells in the Bible. We believe in an Incarnate God, not an Inlibrate (sp?) God. In fact, isn’t it the Muslims who believe that God is embodied in the Koran? I seem to remember that from a freshman humanities course.