Questions on Trent

[Vinny213]

Hello everyone, first before I begin I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas. Now I have a few questions about the following canons such as:

If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

What is this decree trying to say? This seems to contradicts Trent’s earlier statement that the alone formal cause of our justification is the justice of God. Is Trent only trying to condemn that we are justified by an external righteousness?
Now there is this canon

If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

Is this canon referring to chapter 9 which deals with the vain confidence of heretics?

 

[guanophore]

Hello everyone, first before I begin I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you too! Such DEEP questions for Xmas pondering!

Now I have a few questions about the following canons such as:

If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

No one can be righteous before God apart from his grace. It is not possible by our own “good works” to be justified in His sight. Although human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and we are able to experience justice without a conscious relationship with Christ, our human sense of justice is insifficient to repair our relationship with God.

What is this decree trying to say? This seems to contradicts Trent’s earlier statement that the alone formal cause of our justification is the justice of God. Is Trent only trying to condemn that we are justified by an external righteousness?

Acutally, this canon compliments the previous one.

Now there is this canon If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

Is this canon referring to chapter 9 which deals with the vain confidence of heretics?

Yes, more specifically this one speaks against the Calvanistic notion that one can have confidence (if one is of the elect) tht we will be saved, and that all sins, past, present, and future have already ben forgiven by Christ. Calvanism does not teach that we need to repent from our sins, or that a commitment to holiness is necessary to be in a right relationship with God.

 

[fhansen]

Hello everyone, first before I begin I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas. Now I have a few questions about the following canons such as:

If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified;

We can only be made just because of the merits of Christ.

or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.*

We are formally just not by the merely declared righteousness of Christ, but by genuinely being made just, made ontologically just by God due to the merits of Christ.

Now there is this canon

If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.*

The Reformers believed in “fiduciary faith”; they depended sheerly on their trust in God to save them. This is to place faith in ones faith, and faith in ones faith alone to save them whereas the CC teaches a different role for faith, as being the beginning of salvation, “the root and foundation” of it.

 

[Anthony_V]

Hello everyone, first before I begin I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas.

Hello

If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

What is this decree trying to say?

It is by the merits of Christ that man is justified and made righteous. This justification and infusion of righteousness occurs in baptism, where the person is not just healed of original sin, but infused with sanctifying grace. St. Paul says this about justification and righteousness in baptism:

[BIBLEDRB]romans 6:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

It is by this justification that man is born into the sanctifying life of Christ. The works of the person become like the works of Christ, bearing merit, and are superadded to the works of Christ for God’s glory. It should be sternly noted that the good works of Man are still rightly Christ’s works, albeit superadded. Man’s works play no part in his justification (Romans 9:32). If you need further clarification, let me know.

This seems to contradicts Trent’s earlier statement that the alone formal cause of our justification is the justice of God. Is Trent only trying to condemn that we are justified by an external righteousness?

In essence, yes. Here’s the hangup with “external righteousness”: Reformed theology teaches that the regenerated man is born into the products of Christ’s merits as some sort of grace (a free gift of imputed righteousness). Catholic theology teaches that the regenerated man is literally born into Christ’s life of grace–from both the causal factor of grace in the divine nature (I Peter 2:4), and participating in (though not causing with due credence to Mary as co-Redemptrix]) Christ’s meritorious work of salvation (Matthew 20:1-16); a free gift of infused righteousness.

*If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema. *

Is this canon referring to chapter 9 which deals with the vain confidence of heretics?

This is a statement antithetical to the notion that justification and sanctification are not immediately integral to one another–that one can be made just, but not sanctified. Or, conversely, that man is not justified in his sanctification. The main statement of this canon is that man is justified in his sanctification, as an intrinsic righteousness, and that justification cannot be forensically separated from sanctification in that sense. Can. 10 makes better sense in conjunction with Can. 11.

Also, Can. 24 ties all these ideas together.

Peace to you,
Anthony V.

 

[Anthony_V]

Let me clarify something (because I am clumsy with this terminology). Man plays no part in his initial justification. That is to say, man cannot merit sanctifying grace itself. He can only merit in sanctifying grace.

The other half is that man is justified and sanctified in the efficacy of grace, not merely in the reception of it. I recommend this lecture on sufficient vs. efficacious grace.

 

[Vinny213]

Let me clarify something (because I am clumsy with this terminology). Man plays no part in his initial justification. That is to say, man cannot merit sanctifying grace itself. He can only merit in sanctifying grace.

So you are saying that mans works of merits do not justify him or take any effect until he is justified at baptism. After baptism man increases in the justice he received and even preserves it. Also what is it with the idea that mans works and merits need to be added to Christ’s? Are Christ’s good works not good enough?

If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

So in this decree Trent is only condemning the idea that we are justified by an external alien righteousness, am I correct? Because it almost seems contradictory for Trent to espouse that the infused righteousness is the formal cause of our justification and then condemn it.

This is a statement antithetical to the notion that justification and sanctification are not immediately integral to one another–that one can be made just, but not sanctified. Or, conversely, that man is not justified in his sanctification. The main statement of this canon is that man is justified in his sanctification, as an intrinsic righteousness, and that justification cannot be forensically separated from sanctification in that sense. Can. 10 makes better sense in conjunction with Can. 11.

I don’t think this statement has anything to do with the faith that is being condemned. I think guanophore was more on the mark when he said that Trent was actually condemning the Calvinistic notion that one can be confident that he is saved and is part of the elect. Here are guanophore’s words:

Yes, more specifically this one speaks against the Calvanistic notion that one can have confidence (if one is of the elect) that we will be saved, and that all sins, past, present, and future have already been forgiven by Christ. Calvanism does not teach that we need to repent from our sins, or that a commitment to holiness is necessary to be in a right relationship with God.

Guanophore I think that your last sentence is false and a caricature of Calvinism. Calvinists are not antinomians. Is it Catholic doctrine that man is only forgiven of his past sins? I also would like to know what the RC understanding of justifying faith is and how it differs from the “trusting” faith of the reformers. I know that faith is considered one of the three theological virtues in Catholicism.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hello everyone, first before I begin I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas. Now I have a few questions about the following canons such as:

If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

What is this decree trying to say?

Greetings in Christ, and Merry Christmas to you too!

Chapter 2: Trent and Double Justice

If you read what you can of the preview available at this link, I think that you will find it helpful. May you find the mercy of God for you in the grace of the Catholic faith.

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Vinny213]

Thanks I will look at that link Peter. So this 10th canon was simply condemning the idea that we are justified by two different rightousness one external the other internal? I would still like to see a response from the two other gentlemen that I engaged with in my most recent post.

 

[Anthony_V]

So you are saying that mans works of merits do not justify him or take any effect until he is justified at baptism. After baptism man increases in the justice he received and even preserves it. Also what is it with the idea that mans works and merits need to be added to Christ’s? Are Christ’s good works not good enough?

In fact, man cannot merit until he is baptized. Then, yes, he increases in justice by submission to the grace of God, and the grace’s efficacy.

I understand what you are saying on the second part. There are three ways to properly understand this.

A) God is the Prima Causa, the first mover, in all things.We are called to love God of our own freewill, as God has loved us freely. Our submission to the grace which flows from the works of Christ is what causes salvation. Love is good works and faith, together. Faith could be seen as the supernatural and operative side made manifest in a natural Way, and good works is the natural and cooperative side elevated by grace to a supernatural Way. Together, they are synergistic–that is, true Love; this is entangled with the fully divine and fully human nature of Christ, as well as how the Greatest Commandment is two-fold.

B) Because grace is the life of God, and we are just participants in it, the goodness of “good works” still properly belongs to Christ, even though it is we who “worked”. For example in Galatians 2:20, St. Paul says “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me”. Christ lives in us, and his life becomes our own. We become partakers in it. We are the tenant farmers, so to speak.

C) The essential work of salvation (as opposed to the accidental) is completed. Christ’s Passion, death, and Resurrection made him the Way and the Life for us, by ordaining us to that end. He opened the gates of heaven for all people to share in his Life, which is the Way, and thereby meriting sufficient grace for all people. It is up to the people to cooperate with this sufficient grace, which is enough for salvation. Cooperation with this grace is good works.

I’m rather tired right now, so I hope all this is making sense. Peace to you, my friend!

 

[guanophore]

Thanks I will look at that link Peter. So this 10th canon was simply condemning the idea that we are justified by two different rightousness one external the other internal?

I would not confine it to that, but yes, this is one element that is addressed. Both Luther and Calvin denied that we are “made” righteous by the grace of baptism - that we were only “declared” righteous, but that our depraved nature was not cleansed.

1 Cor 6:9-11

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

The Apostles taught that the washing of baptism not only placed the candidate in right relationship with God, but washed away all sins, personal and original. The appeal to God of a clean conscience was actual (grace is infused), not just “forensic” (declaration of righteousness of one who is not really righteous).

 

[Vinny213]

Thanks for the responses every one, I am really learning a lot here. With respect to the 10th canon I was told by another apologist that that canon was condemning a certain conception of justifying faith. With respect to justifying faith, what is considered justifying faith in Roman Catholicism and how does it differ from the protestant conception? Is trust in God’s mercy completely out of the question in the catholic definition of justifying faith? I heard that faith is a virtue in Roman Catholicism so correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks for the responses every one, I am really learning a lot here. With respect to the 10th canon I was told by another apologist that that canon was condemning a certain conception of justifying faith. With respect to justifying faith, what is considered justifying faith in Roman Catholicism and how does it differ from the protestant conception? Is trust in God’s mercy completely out of the question in the catholic definition of justifying faith? I heard that faith is a virtue in Roman Catholicism so correct me if I’m wrong.

Faith is a theological virtue, a gift of grace in Catholic teaching, but, as with all grace, it can be resisted. Faith gives us the ability to believe in supernatural truths revealed to us via the Church. As such it involves knowledge more than trust, and this is why even demons can believe. Hope is another theological virtue that gives us the ability to place confidence in the promises of God, to trust in them. Hebrews 11:1 pretty much sums up the operation of these two virtues, and the two together mean something like the Reformers idea of faith. Faith alone is still not the sole need for justification in any case. Also, in common usage in Catholic teaching as well as scripture, faith can also imply trust.

 

[thenobes]

With respect to justifying faith, what is considered justifying faith in Roman Catholicism and how does it differ from the protestant conception? Is trust in God’s mercy completely out of the question in the catholic definition of justifying faith? I heard that faith is a virtue in Roman Catholicism so correct me if I’m wrong.

For Catholics, a justifying faith includes trust in God’s mercy, but also includes the need to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit to do good works and turn from bad ones. One is enabled to follow the Holy Spirit, and rejecting the promptings may lead to loss of sanctifying grace, the life of God within one, and thus loss of justification

Protestants (Sola Fide ones) seem to believe that a trusting faith alone will lead, almost automatically, to doing good works and avoiding bad ones. They believe that if good works don’t result, then a true trusting faith was not present to begin with. The worry about break with justification is not there, a worry that Catholics might have, but just the possibility that there was never an actual justification to begin with.

Although there are practical ramification of both beliefs, in most cases each system is internally consistent. Off the top of my head I can’t see a practical difference. However both the Bible and Tradition support the Catholic belief better.

peace
steve

 

[guanophore]

  Thanks for the responses every one, I am really learning a lot here. With respect to the 10th canon I was told by another apologist that that canon was condemning a certain conception of justifying faith.

Yes. These canons were developed to combat the heresies that arose during the Reformation with regard to justification, among other things.

With respect to justifying faith, what is considered justifying faith in Roman Catholicism and how does it differ from the protestant conception?

This is difficult to answer, because “Protestanism” is so broad. Many Protestant groups are also at odds iwht one another on this point.

Suffice to say that the CC teaches that we are not “justified by faith alone”. Technically speaking, we are not justified by faith at all, but by grace. It is God who justifies us, by His mercy. We access that grace through faith. The Calvanist position is that we are justified/regenerated without or apart from our will, which is inconsistent with what the Apostles taught.

Is trust in God's mercy completely out of the question in the catholic definition of justifying faith?

Of course not! One must remember that the NT was written by, for,a nd about Catholics. There is nothing in teh NT that is not Catholic. Therefore, when we see verses making reference to being justified through His mercy, it is clear this is very Catholic.

What is NOT Catholic is the notion that we are justified by His mercy apart from faith. While faith is never alone, faith is also an essential participant in our relationship with God. We believe infants are justified on the parent’s faith. Adults and all who have reached the age of reason must make a profession of faith before they are justified through baptism.

The CC teaches also that saving fatih is a certain QUALITY of faith, as it says in James:

James 2:24-26
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

Saving faith is faith that works.

I heard that faith is a virtue in Roman Catholicism so correct me if I’m wrong.

Yes, faith is a gift, an unmerited favor from God. Faith is also a fruit of the Spirit that grows when one is rooted in the Vine. Faith is a character trait of those who live in the Spirit, one that is evident to others, believers and non-believers alike.

We don’t say "faith alone’ because saving faith is always the result of God’s grace which kindles it in us. It is also accompanied by works, which are the product of the same grace.

Eph 2:8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

By faith we “walk” in the good works prepared for us.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Thanks I will look at that link Peter. So this 10th canon was simply condemning the idea that we are justified by two different rightousness one external the other internal? I would still like to see a response from the two other gentlemen that I engaged with in my most recent post.

That’s right. No imputation needed in addition to the infused “righteousness of God” because God has sent “His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:3-4). And so the grace of God that makes us righteous before Him, and that “forms” our righteousness is His own love which “has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Romans 5:5). It is the “breastplate of faith and love and for a helmet the hope of salvation” (1 Thessalonians 5:8) that we put on by grace the day that we were baptized and “put on Christ” through faith (Galatians 3:27).

No religion? What is your story?

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[guanophore]

Excellent points, Pete, and getting right to the heart of the differences in how the Reformers thought about justification and the Apostles taught it.

That’s right.  **No imputation needed **in addition to the infused “righteousness of God”

I think, when dealing with our separated brethren on this issue of imputation, we may shoot ourselves in the foot if we say it this way. I agree with your point, of course, but that particular phrasing may cause them to recoil and not be able to hear the rest. The entire philosophy of forensic justification hangs on the medieval legal concept of imputation (Calvin was an attorney).

Rom 4:1-6
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. 5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. 6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:

The concept of “reckoned” here is actualy an accounting term used by Paul in the context of settling debts. The Calvanists substitute “imputed” for “reckoned”, also translated “accounted to”.

So they believe that justification is “reckoned” or “imputed” to us, as if it is entered in a ledger. Jesus merited it, and it is ascribed to our account.

The biggest difference is that The Apostles taught the “reckoning” is actual (grace is infused) where Luther and Calvin taught that it was simply a forensic justification (delcared, rather than actual). so basically from their point of view God has cooked the books, and credited something that in reality does not exist (we are really just snow covered dunghills).

For that reason I think it is more to the point to say that **the infused righteousness of God IS the imputation. **

because God has sent “His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:3-4). And so the grace of God that makes us righteous before Him, and that “forms” our righteousness is His own love which “has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Romans 5:5). It is the “breastplate of faith and love and for a helmet the hope of salvation” (1 Thessalonians 5:8) that we put on by grace the day that we were baptized and “put on Christ” through faith (Galatians 3:27).

No religion? What is your story?

With love in Christ,
Pete

I am curious about this too.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Greetings, Guano Brother!

Thank you for your thoughts.

Yes. It seems to me that the imputational model simply suffers from a “Christ is over there with His righteousness,” and an “I’m over here as a sinner” mentality, with too stark a division between and separation of the two. I think that if we conceptually move Christ over to us, to come live inside of us, so that we think of and talk about “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27), then we have a better picture of and handle on the Gospel. We want to emphasize union with Christ through faith and that “Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses His virtue into the said justified—as the Head into the members, and the Vine into the branches—and [that] this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without they could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God” (Council of Trent: Decree on Justification, Ch. XVI).

Total dependency on Christ! We need greater appreciation of the fact that, although Christ is other than us, He is not extrinsic to us who have Him living in us by His Spirit. “Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?” (2 Corinthians 13:5)

John Paul II shared some interesting thoughts that I think can help us to successfully blend the merits of the imputational model with what we Catholics are trying to say and to bridge the theological gap between us:

“St. John too undoubtedly referring to this mystery, but in his own characteristic language which differs from St. Paul’s, was able to write that ‘anyone born of God does not sin, but he who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.’ In this Johannine affirmation there is an indication of hope, based on the divine promises: The Christian has received the guarantee and the necessary strength not to sin. It is not a question therefore of a sinlessness acquired through one’s own virtue or even inherent in man, as the Gnostics thought. It is a result of God’s action. In order not to sin the Christian has knowledge of God, as St. John reminds us in this same passage. But a little before he had written: ‘No one born of God commits sin; for God’s seed abides in him.’ If by ‘God’s seed’ we understand, as some commentators suggest, Jesus the Son of God, then we can say that in order not to sin or in order to gain freedom from sin the Christian has within himself the presence of Christ and the mystery of Christ, which is the mystery of God’s loving kindness” (John Paul II, Reconciliation and Penance).

With love in Christ,
Pete

 

[Vinny213]

For that reason I think it is more to the point to say that the infused righteousness of God IS the imputation.

This is not the first time I have heard of this. I read that Aquinas also thought of the infused righteousness as a sort of imputation and crediting to our account. Also is it fair to say that a Roman Catholic is not justified by his works or faith but solely by God’s free grace at baptism? So therefore to say that Catholics believe they are justified by their works and faith like most Protestant charge is inaccurate? I am told that there is a distinction between justification itself and and increase in justice. I am glad to see that trust and confidence in God’s promises and mercy is not something forbidden in Catholicism.

 

[Vinny213]

For Catholics, a justifying faith includes trust in God’s mercy, but also includes the need to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit to do good works and turn from bad ones. One is enabled to follow the Holy Spirit, and rejecting the promptings may lead to loss of sanctifying grace, the life of God within one, and thus loss of justification

So in a nutshell justifying faith means more than simply trust or confidence in Roman Catholicism. Am I right? I just want to make sure what Trent was condemning specifically in that canon where is condemns “confidence in God’s mercy.” So if we reject God’s way for us than we lose our justified state? Our salvation/justification will only be lost if we reject it or throw it away then, so God does not kick us out or remove salvation from us, but its we who throw away that gift. Correct me if I am wrong.

What is NOT Catholic is the notion that we are justified by His mercy apart from faith. While faith is never alone, faith is also an essential participant in our relationship with God. We believe infants are justified on the parent’s faith. Adults and all who have reached the age of reason must make a profession of faith before they are justified through baptism.

So in order for God’s mercy to take effect we must willfully respond to him with our will and faith? Sounds very Arminian and Molinist to me. Would do you do with the scriptural passages that say God shows mercy on us unconditionally despite our will and faith?

 

[fhansen]

For Catholics, a justifying faith includes trust in God’s mercy, but also includes the need to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit to do good works and turn from bad ones. One is enabled to follow the Holy Spirit, and rejecting the promptings may lead to loss of sanctifying grace, the life of God within one, and thus loss of justification

So in a nutshell justifying faith means more than simply trust or confidence in Roman Catholicism. Am I right? I just want to make sure what Trent was condemning specifically in that canon where is condemns “confidence in God’s mercy.” So if we reject God’s way for us than we lose our justified state? Our salvation/justification will only be lost if we reject it or throw it away then, so God does not kick us out or remove salvation from us, but its we who throw away that gift. Correct me if I am wrong.

This is true. God won’t force us to remain saved-or turned towards Him-anymore than He forced Adam to do so. We’re expected to* do something*, to respond to and act on grace, as per the Parable of the Talents, during whatever time and opportunities we happen to be gifted with.

What is NOT Catholic is the notion that we are justified by His mercy apart from faith. While faith is never alone, faith is also an essential participant in our relationship with God. We believe infants are justified on the parent’s faith. Adults and all who have reached the age of reason must make a profession of faith before they are justified through baptism.

So in order for God’s mercy to take effect we must willfully respond to him with our will and faith? Sounds very Arminian and Molinist to me. Would do you do with the scriptural passages that say God shows mercy on us unconditionally despite our will and faith?

I’m not sure I understand this. If “God shows mercy on us unconditionally despite our will and faith”, then salvation should be universal and no hell would exist.