Pope Benedict XVI - "faith alone is true"!

[hawkeye]

Your answer is very close to proclaiming a works righteousness salvation. That is why many Protestants think that Catholics have a faith based on personal works for justification. Please read the Catholic professor’s paper on my signature (second link).

The Good thief, did bad works, the good thief didn’t have a whole lot of opportunity to confess, Jesus said this day …etc;

 

[2nd_Adam]

The Good thief, did bad works, the good thief didn’t have a whole lot of opportunity to confess, Jesus said this day …etc;

I did not know there was a good thief and a bad thief. What made one a good thief and the other a bad thief (faith alone?) ?

Two others, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. 33 And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. 34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” [2] And they cast lots to divide his garments. 35 And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” 36 The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine 37 and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” 38 There was also an inscription over him, [3] “This is the King of the Jews.”

One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (FAITH ALONE)

 

[Canto]

I did not know there was a good thief and a bad thief. What made one a good thief and the other a bad thief (faith alone?) ?

The bad theif blasphemed Christ
The good thief carried out a good work and defended Christ
He also acknoweldged that they were suffering justly, Christ not.

 

[2nd_Adam]

The bad theif blasphemed Christ
The good thief carried out a good work and defended Christ
He also acknoweldged that they were suffering justly, Christ not.

Are you saying because he defended Jesus Christ that he merited eternal life?

 

[guanophore]

You have posted that I believe in a different gospel as a historic confessional Protestant. Therefore, you are required to defend the gospelaccording to Jude 3

No, 2nd. My obligation to defend the gospel has no relationship to the fact that you have embraced a different one. My obligation emanates from my choice to embrace the Faith of the Apsotles.

No amount of people embracing something else affects that in any way.

 Why am I under the curse of God according to Paul, since you posted that I believe in a different gospel?

What makes you think that you are? Paul is talking about persons that claim to embrace the Faith of the Apostles. He called them “superapostles”. They came through masquerading as authentic, but were teaching something different from what was committed to the Church by the Apostles.

.

So you have turned up the notch to just below the boling point.

I apologize. It was not my intention to cause any boiling. I merely am trying to point out the fact that what you have embraced is a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

You do not agree with this. You believe that the gospel you have embraced is the Truth that is the same as the Apostles. You cannot know differently, since your spiritual ancestors separated from the Apostolic Teaching 500 years ago. You don’t see or believe that there is anything wrong with what you have been taught because you have not received the Gospel that Paul (and the other apostles) delivered.

 

[guanophore]

I did not know there was a good thief and a bad thief. What made one a good thief and the other a bad thief (faith alone?) ?

Two others, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. 33 And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. 34 And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” [2] And they cast lots to divide his garments. 35 And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” 36 The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine 37 and saying, “If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!” 38 There was also an inscription over him, [3] “This is the King of the Jews.”

One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (FAITH ALONE)

It is clear from the passage that both thieves had actions (works). The unbeliever blasphemed the Lord, and the one who had faith not only defended the Lord, but rebuked the other. He took responsibility for himself, ("we are suffering the just rewards of our deeds) To that he added a profession of faith “this man has done nothing wrong” and his profession that Jesus was a King, and would come into His Kingdom.

One has to wonder how come the thief knew so much, unless he had previous contact with the Lord.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Are you saying because he defended Jesus Christ that he merited eternal life?

He confessed his faith in Christ and vocally asked for Jesus to remember him.

He rebuked the other thief.

He had faith and acted on it.

Do you think he would have had an identical fate if he never said a word?

 

[guanophore]

Are you saying because he defended Jesus Christ that he merited eternal life?

All good deeds that are done by grace through faith may bring rewards.

The good thief demonstrated what James writes about. His faith was perfected (completed) by his works. He demonstrated the quality of his faith by his actions.

This is the “if” the Pope refers to. IF the “faith alone” is faith that works, faith that loves, faith that endures to the end, IF it is the quality of faith that obeys the commandments of God, then it is “faith alone”. It is the quality of faith that matters.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Pope Benedict XVI - “faith alone is true”!

---

Friends, I hope you don’t object to me adding a few additional comments

When the Bible speaks of “faith” it is always from the position of Faith being necessary to know God ans enter into a personal relationship with Him. BUT it is never intended to be understood as “Faith alone.” John 3:5. Mt. 19:16, James Chapter two are all examples that support this thesis. And there are more than just these. "If you wish to come after me, take up YOUR CROSS and follow me, and John:20:21-23 also comes to mind. [PJM]

I would add to this what is implied, that WORKS of Obedience [Mt. 19:16,] and Charity [Mt. 19:19] are essential as explained in James Chapter two.

Here are a few more: Making the sign of the Cross, blessing oneself with Holy Water, the Crucifix [you use just the cross], genfulections and kneeling as a sign of Worship.

---

Sure hope I was of some assistance?

Love and prayers,

Pat

For RANDY as well:
The topic is justification, not santification. By faith alone we are justified before God, declared righteous by the blood of Christ. We are now His children and as such we have a “new nature”, which allows us to produce those fruits of righteousness, which are the good works that God preordained before the foundation of the world that His children would walk in them. This is part of the lifelong process of santification apart from justification. Catholic doctrine co-joins the two, which is not Biblical and results in legalism or works righteousness as I see it. this is why I point out the catechism because on one side they will say faith alone, but then that justification is not a separate event, we must do those good works as part of our justification and that simply is not what the Bible teaches and as I see it, it is double-speak.

Heck; it doesn’t matter how I see it; it is how God sees it that counts. So I am either right, or they are right or we are both wrong, but there are two separate salvations here or other gospels. I hope this clarifies things a little bit. The issue is justification is a separate “event” apart from sanctification. Works are the result, not the means of justification, which is what James point is and also accords with Paul in Ephesians and Romans.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Hi Adam,

You’re not the first Adam tom be wrong

I’m content to let The Devine and Perfect Justice and Fairness of God judge you my friend.

I can only assist those seeking assistance:shrug:

Love and prayers,

Pat

Maybe I’m the 1st MaAdam? I wouldn’t worry too much about his soul; from what I have seen in his postings, he knows the word of God and that can only happen in one Way.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Your Quote:The Catholic Faith is not based on biblical revelation as being sufficient and complete.

EXACTLY! Because Sacred Scripture is not complete without Sacred Tradition. That is what the early christian church believed. They weren’t BIBLE worshipers…they “PREACHED” the Gospel…Christ said “go out to all the world and PREACH the good news, baptizing in the Name of the Father, and Of the Son and Of the Holy spirit.”

He didn’t say, "Go out to all the world and give everybody a bible and let them read it and then have them repent and then …etc, etc…

Protestants don’t have biblical theology…the only “theology” you have is your own interpretation. Which is fallible.

Did Paul believe in Biblical Revelation alone???
2Thess1:15 **"…so then, brethren, hold fast to the traditions which you were taught by us either by word of Mouth or by letter." **CC

Why can’t a single Catholic tell us what that extra tradition is and where it came from? Paul said it already existed, so how do you know it is not already written? Answer those 3little questions and you can make a point outside of Scripture for moral teaching and faith practice. Good luck, no one and I mean no one can answer those questions, but give’er a shot.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Why can’t a single Catholic tell us what that extra tradition is and where it came from? Paul said it already existed, so how do you know it is not already written? Answer those 3little questions and you can make a point outside of Scripture for moral teaching and faith practice. Good luck, no one and I mean no one can answer those questions, but give’er a shot. <—they are the traditions of the Church that are not explicitly mentioned in the bible, why would Paul say “by mouth” if they were already written down, The NT uses extra biblical old testament traditions of the Jews and likewise we use extra biblical traditions.

There is nothing wrong with faith alone as the the pope said it since the way he referred was where works were part of the faith.

Some of the doctor of the Church do use the phrase “faith alone” but it is in reference to the baptism of desire, which would include the thief at the Cross, since these people do not receieve a sacramental water baptism, they believe in God and are saved.

For example:

"We adduce only the opinions and words of the Fathers and not our own; for we are not wiser than our fathers ...Believe me, it will be difficult to separate me from these two pillars, by which I refer to Augustine and Ambrose. I confess that with them I am either right or wrong in believing that people can be **saved by faith alone** and the desire to receive the sacrament, even if untimely death or some insuperable force keep them from fulfilling their pious desire" (St Bernard Letter 77, 1, 8).

ANd this clearly refers to baptism of desire.

 

[Chancellare]

Why can’t a single Catholic tell us what that extra tradition is

There is no such thing as “extra tradition” in Catholicism. If you think there is, you are as ignorant as this question.
What the Catholic Church teaches is:
Sacred Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
The Magisterium teaches only what has been entrusted to it.
(CCC 131, 133, 81, 82, 85, 86)

and where it came from?

It did not come from anywhere except from what the Apostles spoke and entrusted to the first Christian disciples. You should ask the Apostles themselves. Perhaps they can teach you a few lines on courtesy.

Paul said it already existed, so how do you know it is not already written?

So what difference does it make if something existed and also written and not written? Does it add or diminish from the fact?

 

[guanophore]

---

The topic is justification, not santification. By faith alone we are justified before God, declared righteous by the blood of Christ. We are now His children and as such we have a “new nature”, which allows us to produce those fruits of righteousness, which are the good works that God preordained before the foundation of the world that His children would walk in them. This is part of the lifelong process of santification apart from justification.

Can you please provide the scripture to support that sanctification is “apart” from justification?

Catholic doctrine co-joins the two, which is not Biblical

Could you please supply Catholic documents that demonstrate that justification and sanctification are “co-joined”?

Can you please show along with these Catholic statements the Scriptures that indicate that they are not “biblical”? I am very interested in learning what you mean by this.

and results in legalism or works righteousness as I see it.

I am sure, if what you were saying is true, this would be the case. However, what you are saying is not true.

this is why I point out the catechism because on one side they will say faith alone, but then that justification is not a separate event, we must do those good works as part of our justification and that simply is not what the Bible teaches and as I see it, it is double-speak.

I think you are having this problem because the truth is that the Bible does not “teach”. The bible is profitable in the activity of teaching, but teaching is something done by persons, not books. You have been taught these things by a person, then you look into the Bible to confirm the ideas you were given.

The Apostles (who were authorized by Christ to teach) indicated that the grace that justifies us before God is the same grace that produces good works in us. This is why we are commanded to “work out your salvation”. We work out (in sanctification) that which was infused in us when we were justified. There is no disconnect.

but there are two separate salvations here or other gospels.

No. The only thing that is separate is your perception of what is in Scripture. there is nothing in Catholic Teaching that is inconsistent with Scripture. It all came from the same Source.

The issue is justification is a separate “event” apart from sanctification. Works are the result, not the means of justification, which is what James point is and also accords with Paul in Ephesians and Romans.

James’ point is that our works perfect or complete our faith, meaning that the faith by which we are saved by grace is the same faith by which we walk in the good deeds that God has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

I am interested to see the scripture that indicates how justification is a “separate event” from sanctification. I am particularly interested in exploring the Gk roots of these words in that context. I hope you can locate them for me.

 

[Canto]

Why can’t a single Catholic tell us what that extra tradition is and where it came from? Paul said it already existed, so how do you know it is not already written? Answer those 3little questions and you can make a point outside of Scripture for moral teaching and faith practice. Good luck, no one and I mean no one can answer those questions, but give’er a shot.

Tradition is the one deposit of faith coming from Christ and the Apostles and handed down throughout the centuries by the Church. The Holy Spirit guarding against error.

How do you know it is all written down? St John is clear that if everything were written down there would not be enough books to contain it all. How many of the 12 Apostles wrote a book of the Bible?

Where did the contents page of the Bible come from - Tradition!
Books were selected at the Council of Rome (382 AD) that were in accord and not in contradiction with the tradition handed down.

The Catholic Church holds onto the entire deposit of faith. Tradition be it written or spoken - do you?

 

[mmmcounts]

I don’t think Pope Benedict XVI is speaking of “faith alone” (sola fide) in the context of salvation.

He referred to it as “Luther’s phrase ‘Faith Alone.’” That has a way of limiting the meaning to what Luther meant. It is Luther’s phrase that the Pope agrees with, and that’s exactly why this is a big deal.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

johnnyBeth:

Why can’t a single Catholic tell us what that extra tradition is and where it came from? Paul said it already existed, so how do you know it is not already written? Answer those 3little questions and you can make a point outside of Scripture for moral teaching and faith practice. Good luck, no one and I mean no one can answer those questions, but give’er a shot.

<—they are the traditions of the Church that are not explicitly mentioned in the bible, why would Paul say “by mouth” if they were already written down, The NT uses extra biblical old testament traditions of the Jews and likewise we use extra biblical traditions.

Okay; you answered where they came from. What exactly are those traditions? and How you know they were not written and contained in the Bible? The only plausible answer anyone can give is this “Sola Catholic Church” The Church alone said so; thus putting the Church in equal or greater authority and I would argue greater authority than God…Impossible and blasphemous.

Since the Catholic Church is defined by the magisterium; it narrows down even further that the magisterium would be equal or greater than God; that still would be blasphemous.

I hope you see the fallacy in your argument and why no one can answer the questions because the end game is because the Church said so, therefore it is true, which is fallacy.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

There is no such thing as “extra tradition” in Catholicism. If you think there is, you are as ignorant as this question.
What the Catholic Church teaches is:
Sacred Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
The Magisterium teaches only what has been entrusted to it.
(CCC 131, 133, 81, 82, 85, 86)

It did not come from anywhere except from what the Apostles spoke and entrusted to the first Christian disciples. You should ask the Apostles themselves. Perhaps they can teach you a few lines on courtesy.

So what difference does it make if something existed and also written and not written? Does it add or diminish from the fact?

Unlike the other poster; you went straight to “Sola Catholic Church” because “the Church said so”; your answer was more ridiculous than the question which you supposed as ridiculous.
You have to show divine origin as the Bible does. You can’t because it is not in the Bible which is the sole authority concerning special revelation from God; special as opposed to general revelation such as creation. It is the Church’s “thorn in the flesh” and contains extra tradition not in the Bible, much like the Jewish system, which Jesus gave all those “woe’s” to for extra traditions that were not in accord with His Word.

Adding an ounce of common sense here; what was Paul teaching by mouth; the gospel…duh!

**2 Thessalonians 2:15 ** So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

***paradosis = traditions - tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.

1. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching ***

What was Pauls theme - Jesus Christ

1 Corinthians 2:1-5 1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For ***I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. ***3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

Yes; those teachings (AKA traditions) which Paul spoke by mouth and written by his hand, is contained in what we call the Bible and is from Paul’s own testimony. What does this say about traditions outside of the Bible; acceptable by God or not? Depends. Do they accord with Scripture, then okay; if not, then one is adding or subtractiong from the Word of God and that is a BIG FAT NO! NO!

 

[guanophore]

Okay; you answered where they came from.  What exactly are those traditions?

They are the Teachings that comprise the lifestyle of the Christian, called in the NT The Way. They are the prayers, disciplines, and world view of the Apostles that have been preserved in the Church. One of them is that the interpretation of Scripture should not be separated from the Deposit of Faith in the Church.

'and How you know they were not written and contained in the Bible?

The NT is a collection of holy writings. It was never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith.

The only plausible answer anyone can give is this “Sola Catholic Church”

No. The Apostles taught that the Divine Revelation is contained in two equal and complimentary strands, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition. They are not to be separated, and they are to be regarded equally.

The Church alone said so; thus putting the Church in equal or greater authority and I would argue greater authority than God…Impossible and blasphemous.

It seems that way because you don’t recognize that Jesus is completely identified with HIs Body.

Since the Catholic Church is defined by the magisterium; it narrows down even further that the magisterium would be equal or greater than God; that still would be blasphemous.

False. The Catholic Church is defined by Christ.

I hope you see the fallacy in your argument and why no one can answer the questions because the end game is because the Church said so, therefore it is true, which is fallacy.

I can see why it would be a fallacy if your premises were true, but they are not, and it isn’t.

The Church belongs to Jesus, who is her Head. She is His Body. It is by Him that she stands.

 

[guanophore]

You have to show divine origin as the Bible does. You can’t because it is not in the Bible which is the sole authority concerning special revelation from God; special as opposed to general revelation such as creation.

Really? Can you show us in Scripture where it says this about itself?

Why do you suppse the Bible testifies that the Word of God resides in the Church?

It is the Church's "thorn in the flesh" and contains extra tradition not in the Bible, much like the Jewish system, which Jesus gave all those "woe's" to for extra traditions that were not in accord with His Word.

The Holy Scripture is not a “thorn in the flesh” if the Church. On the contrary, the entire NT was added to the Bible by the Church. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.
Do you have any idea about the history of the Bible?

Adding an ounce of common sense here; what was Paul teaching by mouth; the gospel…duh!

The Apostolic kerygma did not suddenly disappear because some of it was committed to writing.

**2 Thessalonians 2:15 ** So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

***paradosis = traditions - tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.

1. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching ***

What was Pauls theme - Jesus Christ

You seem to believe that Jesus Christ did not remain alive and well in the Church.

1 Corinthians 2:1-5 1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For ***I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. ***3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

Yes; those teachings (AKA traditions) which Paul spoke by mouth and written by his hand, is contained in what we call the Bible and is from Paul’s own testimony.

Some of them are, certainly. But hey, I am looking for copies of Paul’s lectures in Tyrannus. He was there every day for two years! I will pay top dollar, if you know where I can pick them up.

What does this say about traditions outside of the Bible; acceptable by God or not? Depends. Do they accord with Scripture, then okay; if not, then one is adding or subtractiong from the Word of God and that is a BIG FAT NO! NO!

There are no Sacred Traditions that are not in accord with Scripture. The entire NT was produced out of Sacred Tradition, that is why there is no contradiction.