Questions on Trent

[fhansen]

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.

It’s kind of like, if you’re not growing, becoming more alive/holy, during the time you have, then you’re dying. Baptism makes us perfectly clean-but the true test is in how well we succeed in our struggle against sin-and towards righteousness. What end can there be in growing in righteousness, i.e. in growing in love for God and neighbor?

 

[guanophore]

 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?

No, because actual grace is never “alone” either. The Church does not baptize without a profession of faith. This profession is a response to God’s grace, drawing a person to the baptismal waters. Participation in baptism is also a righteous “work”, our contribution/response to grace. It is God who is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure, but He does not do this work “solely” (without us). God does not save us because of anything we do, but He also does not save us apart from our will/choice/faith.

 So therefore to say that Catholics believe they are justified by their works and faith like most Protestant charge is inaccurate?

It is inaccurate for two reasons. The first is that we are always justified by grace. Faith, working through love, is our response to saving grace.

The second is that Protestants often do not understand the Catholic understanding that all of our "ergos hagios good works are produced by the same grace that justifies us, through faith. Many have been taught that we believe it is by our own “merit” that we enter salvation, rather than grasping that Christ makes us worthy from the inside out.

I am told that there is a distinction between justification itself and and increase in justice.

Catholics don’t separate justification from sanctification as our separated brethren do. We understand that, when we are in right relationship with God, He works in and through us to make us more holy.

I am glad to see that trust and confidence in God’s promises and mercy is not something forbidden in Catholicism.

How on earth did you ever come by such a distortion?

 

[guanophore]

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

Yes.

So in a nutshell justifying faith means more than simply trust or confidence in Roman Catholicism. Am I right?

Catholicism is not “Roman”

what you have described in your first paragraph is what Catholic faith is all about. I am not sure how what you are asking is different from what you have stated. Saving faith is faith that works. it is fatih that follows the Holy Spirit, and responds to “grace upon grace.”

 I just want to make sure what Trent was condemning specifically in that canon where is condemns "confidence in God's mercy."

Persons who do not produce the fruit of the Spirit, and are not in the process of becoming stanctified in HIs grace do not demonstrate a saving faith. What the Reformers posultated was that God’s mercy would save, even if one persisted in a life of sin, because He is mercifiul toward His elect. What the Apostles taught is that the elect are becoming sanctified, and purged from sin.

So if we reject God’s way for us than we lose our justified state?

Yes. Contrary to what the Reformers believed, the nature of sin has not changed. Sin continues to separate people from God.

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.

For the baptized, this is true. For those who have never entered salvation through baptism, it would be a case of refusing God’s prevenient or drawing grace.

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.

Yes, Arminius did continue in the Catholic tradition on this point. It is what has put Arminians at odds with Calvanists.

 Would do you do with the scriptural passages that say God shows mercy on us unconditionally despite our will and faith?

This has been beaten to death many threads here. I recommend a search on the word predestination, irresistable grace, or there was a recent one on salvation assurance.

We understand these verses in the light of what the Apostles believed at taught about justification, rather than removing them from that context, and creating a new context to surround them.

 

[Vinny213]

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.

My point is that God shows mercy on us whenever he pleases and is not confined to our actions and thoughts.

This profession is a response to God’s grace, drawing a person to the baptismal waters. Participation in baptism is also a righteous “work”, our contribution/response to grace. It is God who is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure, but He does not do this work “solely” (without us). God does not save us because of anything we do, but He also does not save us apart from our will/choice/faith.

So our response to God’s grace by using our free-will is considered a work? I thought that when we are justified at baptism we do not bring any merits or works to the table, but only do after we are in a justified state.

Yes, Arminius did continue in the Catholic tradition on this point. It is what has put Arminians at odds with Calvinists.

But Arminius’s synergistic understanding of free-will was at odds with Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther etc. I must say most modern Catholicism is also at odds with those individuals taking more a Molinist approach. You sound very Molinist and so do some other people on this blog. I wonder if you are aware of the tension that exists within Catholicism between the Thomists and Molinists over the subject of free-will and predestination.

 

[Vinny213]

No, because actual grace is never “alone” either. The Church does not baptize without a profession of faith. This profession is a response to God’s grace, drawing a person to the baptismal waters. Participation in baptism is also a righteous “work”, our contribution/response to grace. It is God who is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure, but He does not do this work “solely” (without us). God does not save us because of anything we do, but He also does not save us apart from our will/choice/faith.

So Roman Catholicism does believe that our works justify us? This seems to contradict Trent which says that neither our faith or work/free will/choice merits the grace of justification at baptism, because it comes to us freely through God. So our works done outside of a justified state merit and accomplish nothing and that includes I suppose our faith or free-will, neither of those things have any merit when we first come to be justified.

 

[fhansen]

My point is that God shows mercy on us whenever he pleases and is not confined to our actions and thoughts.

But God is also infinitely just. And if our wills aren’t involved then those who live in eternal torment are likewise there for no other reason than God withholding mercy. IOW, souls would be tormented eternally for no fault of their own, for no reason other than divine whim.

 

[fhansen]

No, because actual grace is never “alone” either. The Church does not baptize without a profession of faith. This profession is a response to God’s grace, drawing a person to the baptismal waters. Participation in baptism is also a righteous “work”, our contribution/response to grace. It is God who is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure, but He does not do this work “solely” (without us). God does not save us because of anything we do, but He also does not save us apart from our will/choice/faith.

So Roman Catholicism does believe that our works justify us? This seems to contradict Trent which says that neither our faith or work/free will/choice merits the grace of justification at baptism, because it comes to us freely through God. So our works done outside of a justified state merit and accomplish nothing and that includes I suppose our faith or free-will, neither of those things have any merit when we first come to be justified.

The Church teaches that man isn’t passive in receiving justifying grace-because he can always resist it. God throws the life-preserver but we aren’t forced to grab it, so we can say, like Augustine, “The God who gave you free will won’t violate it to save you.” We can’t possibly be saved without Him, but He still won’t save us without us. And every breath we take, every moment we’re given to live after being initially justified, is both a test of that Baptismal commitment and a working out of our salvation, so that if a Baptized believer were to shun God afterwards, He allows that to occur. To the extent we remain turned towards Him, we’re expected to grow in righteousness, meaning to grow in love. And what limit can there be to that growth, to that love, to that justice?

 

[Anthony_V]

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?

This is from my Denzinger systematic index:

2ba Faith is the beginning of salvation, the foundation and root of justification; by virtue of the faith which he believes, man can be justified even if he dies before receiving the sacrament.

2bb Justification is the transition to the state of grace and adoption as children; justification means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Justification is both the "justice of God’ and “our justice”; man cooperates in his redemption.

…

2cb Sanctifying grace–the grace of justification-- eliminates all that has the character of sin; justification, however, does not consist solely in the remission of sins; it brings about the sanctification of the interior man; into man are infused the virtues of faith, hope, and charity.

I don’t understand why you’re separating faith + works and grace. They go together. Faith is an operative grace, and is cooperated with by good works. “Faith without works is dead”.

So therefore to say that Catholics believe they are justified by their works and faith like most Protestant charge is inaccurate?

We are justified by grace alone. Grace has a twofold aspect. I wrote an article on this that you might find helpful:

purelycatholic.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-mystery-of-our-salvation-pt-1.html

 

[fhansen]

/faith.So Roman Catholicism does believe that our works justify us? This seems to contradict Trent which says that neither our faith or work/free will/choice merits the grace of justification at baptism, because it comes to us freely through God. So our works done outside of a justified state merit and accomplish nothing and that includes I suppose our faith or free-will, neither of those things have any merit when we first come to be justified.

This is from Trent session 6, on justification:
For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

 

[guanophore]

 My point is that God shows mercy on us whenever he pleases and is not confined to our actions and thoughts.

No one is suggesting that God is in any way “confied to our actions and thoughts”.

God has chosen to relate to His creatures in such a manner that their actions and thoughts can confine His grace for themselves.
"guanophore:

This profession is a response to God’s grace, drawing a person to the baptismal waters. Participation in baptism is also a righteous “work”, our contribution/response to grace. It is God who is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure, but He does not do this work “solely” (without us). God does not save us because of anything we do, but He also does not save us apart from our will/choice/faith.

So our response to God’s grace by using our free-will is considered a work?

Yes.

John 6:28-29
28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

It is an **I thought that when we are justified at baptism we do not bring any merits or works to the table, but only do after we are in a justified state.

But Arminius’s synergistic understanding of free-will was at odds with Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther etc. I must say most modern Catholicism is also at odds with those individuals taking more a Molinist approach. You sound very Molinist and so do some other people on this blog. I wonder if you are aware of the tension that exists within Catholicism between the Thomists and Molinists over the subject of free-will and predestination.

I don’t know that I would call it a “tension”. Both views fall within the once for all divine deposit of faith we have received.

People who think that this view “is at odds” do so because they have only read parts of these theologians, and ignore others (usually because they sound too Catholic).

Augustine and Aquinas, as well as all the early Fathers cannot be understood properly outside the Catholic faith, in which they were immersed. The practice some Reformed Christians have of removing comments from these authors to support Reformation ideas refuse to accept the Catholicity of their faith and writings.

 

[guanophore]

"guanophore:

No, because effectual grace is never "alone" either. The Church does not baptize without a profession of faith. This profession is a response to God's grace, drawing a person to the baptismal waters. Participation in baptism is also a righteous "work", our contribution/response to grace. It is God who is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure, but He does not do this work "solely" (without us). God does not save us because of anything we do, but He also does not save us apart from our will/choice/faith.

 So Roman Catholicism does believe that our works justify us?

No.

We are justified before God in only one way - by grace, upon the merits of Christ on the cross.

This seems to contradict Trent which says that neither our faith or work/free will/choice merits the grace of justification at baptism, because it comes to us freely through God.

God moves the human heart to repentance. Those who respond to the movement of grace are enabled by it to repent and be baptized.

So our works done outside of a justified state merit and accomplish nothing and that includes I suppose our faith or free-will, neither of those things have any merit when we first come to be justified.

I am not sure how you are using the term “merit” here.

At what point did Cornelius (Acts. ch 10) become justified? Did he “merit” this gift, in the way you are using the term?

 

[Vinny213]

Yes.

John 6:28-29
28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

It is an I thought that when we are justified at baptism we do not bring any merits or works to the table, but only do after we are in a justified state.

But is the work of free-will considered meritorious considering that when we first use our free-will we do not have sanctifying grace or are in a justified state? Also I thought that our faith in God was a divine gift given to us and not a merit.

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.

Here you are saying that faith is a gift and then later on you imply that it is a work. Which is it? A gift a work or both?

I am not sure how you are using the term “merit” here.

I am using the word merit as in earn or reward. I thought Catholic teaching was that we cannot merit anything until after we have been justified and all our works done before justification count for nothing and at baptism it is solely God’s gift of grace that freely justifies us.

 

[Vinny213]

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.

So is man justified by his renewal? I thought that man is justified by God’s righteousness infused into him. Is this infused righteousness solely God’s or does it also become ours? I thought that when we are first justified at baptism we are not yet sanctified because we are still sinners and not in a state of grace, we are only sanctified in progressive justification which comes after baptism. I am a bit confused now.

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 super-added.

What do you mean by super-added. Do you mean that since Christ’s personal merit was insufficient to save us, we then need to add our merit and works in order to complete his redemptive activity?

 

[guanophore]

 Yes.

John 6:28-29
28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

It is an I thought that when we are justified at baptism we do not bring any merits or works to the table, but only do after we are in a justified state.

But is the work of free-will considered meritorious considering that when we first use our free-will we do not have sanctifying grace or are in a justified state?

It would be if this were true, but it is not. The Apostles taught that the image of God in which humans are created was wounded at the Fall, so that, though we seek after God instinctively, we cannot come into relationship with him except by His grace. He calls all humans to repent and believe, and pours out His grace upon all, so that every person has sufficient grace to turn to Him. Those who responded to Peter’s sermon on Pentecost were not yet in a sanctified/justified state, as they had not yet been baptized, but they responded to God’s grace to choose to enter the waters of baptism by faith.

Also I thought that our faith in God was a divine gift given to us and not a merit.

Faith is a gift from God, and how we employ that gift determines whether we can receive grace. Some put their fatih in themselves, other people, power, money, etc. If we choose to place our faith in Him, then he pours “grace upon grace”. Faith is the faculty through which we access grace.

Here you are saying that faith is a gift and then later on you imply that it is a work. Which is it? A gift a work or both?

Both. God fashioned mankind with the ability to have and to use faith. He also supplements this creation with Divine gifts.

I am not sure how you are using the term “merit” here.

I am using the word merit as in earn or reward.

This is a modern conception that does not really reflect the Scriptural concept, especially with regard to justification.

It might be more useful to think of merit in terms of “worth”, especially bearing works “worthy” of repentance.

Rom 2:5-11
6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.

When you read this passage, does it seem to you as if those who sought glory, honor, and immortality deserve the “reward” of eternal life? Does their seeking to do good “merit” salvation?

 

[guanophore]

I thought Catholic teaching was that we cannot merit anything until after we have been justified and all our works done before justification count for nothing and at baptism it is solely God's gift of grace that freely justifies us.

Yes, but we only come to baptism by grace, through faith. We must act/choose. This choosing is a response (work).

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.

So is man justified by his renewal? I thought that man is justified by God’s righteousness infused into him.

Yes, we are justified in baptism, then as we walk in Christ wea are made holy (more justified). Baptism forgives all sins, but it does not remove the sin nature. We must constantly work out our salvation in fear and trembling.

Is this infused righteousness solely God’s or does it also become ours?

This is a very good question, and volumes have been written on it for centuries. A short answer would be that our nature is to become a partaker of the Divine Nature, such that:

Gal 2:20-21
20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

We become less, and He becomes more in us, until our self will is replaced by the mind of Christ.

I thought that when we are first justified at baptism we are not yet sanctified because we are still sinners and not in a state of grace, we are only sanctified in progressive justification which comes after baptism. I am a bit confused now.

This is a calvanistic view of baptism. The Apostles taught that we are perfectly pure and sanctified in baptism.

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.

One of the reasons the ancients would delay baptism so long is that one who dies immediately after baptism is as pure as one can be in this life.

Baptism places us in a state of grace.

As we grow in this grace, we are sanctified (made holy).

2 Cor 3:18
18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

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 super-added.

What do you mean by super-added.

This was not my statement, but I do agree that it is not we ourselves producing the works of God apart from Him.

Phil 2:12-13
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

Our part is to work out the infused grace that was sealed in our hearts at baptism. In doing so, we cooperate with God, who is working in us to produce the works of righteousness for which He has saved us.

Do you mean that since Christ’s personal merit was insufficient to save us, we then need to add our merit and works in order to complete his redemptive activity?

On the contrary, it is the complete sufficiency of Jesus sacrifice on the cross that enables us to become partakers of the divine nature, and to recieve the promised seal of the Holy Spirit, and to access the grace that enables us to work out our salvation because He is at work in us.

 

[Vinny213]

This is a modern conception that does not really reflect the Scriptural concept, especially with regard to justification.

It might be more useful to think of merit in terms of “worth”, especially bearing works “worthy” of repentance.

But us meriting eternal life is only due to God’s promise and mercy not on some contractual tit-for-tat bases. All our merits are gifts of God right? Is he not just crowning his gifts when he rewards our merits?

This was not my statement, but I do agree that it is not we ourselves producing the works of God apart from Him.

I know that that was not your statement but the person who wrote it seems to be denying that Christ’s works and merits are sufficient to save us. Maybe I missed understood him though, I am still waiting for a response from him.

 

[fhansen]

This is a modern conception that does not really reflect the Scriptural concept, especially with regard to justification.

It might be more useful to think of merit in terms of “worth”, especially bearing works “worthy” of repentance.

But us meriting eternal life is only due to God’s promise and mercy not on some contractual tit-for-tat bases. All our merits are gifts of God right? Is he not just crowning his gifts when he rewards our merits?

This was not my statement, but I do agree that it is not we ourselves producing the works of God apart from Him.

I know that that was not your statement but the person who wrote it seems to be denying that Christ’s works and merits are sufficient to save us. Maybe I missed understood him though, I am still waiting for a response from him.

So there’s nothing for man to do? Salvation is universal due to the merits of Christ?

 

[guanophore]

  But us meriting eternal life is only due to God's promise and mercy not on some contractual tit-for-tat bases. All our merits are gifts of God right? Is he not just crowning his gifts when he rewards our merits?

Yes.

The difference between what the Apostles taught, and what Calvin taught, is that human beings have a responsibility to respond and participate. This is the difference between synergism and monergism.

I know that that was not your statement but the person who wrote it seems to be denying that Christ’s works and merits are sufficient to save us. Maybe I missed understood him though, I am still waiting for a response from him.

No, I don’t believe anyone here is denying Christ’s completely efficacious work on the cross. SUch a position would be anti-Catholic.

His sacrifice is sufficient to save the whole world, but the whole world will not be saved, because some people refuse to accept His payment for their sins. Those that refuse the free gift of grace will make their own payment for their sins.

 

[Vinny213]

Yes.

The difference between what the Apostles taught, and what Calvin taught, is that human beings have a responsibility to respond and participate. This is the difference between synergism and monergism.

So my understanding of merits being God’s gifts and reward being based on God’s promise and not a strict contract are correct right? Heaven as our reward is based on God’s promise right?

So there’s nothing for man to do? Salvation is universal due to the merits of Christ?

I am in no way arguing for universalism.

 

[Vinny213]

His sacrifice is sufficient to save the whole world, but the whole world will not be saved, because some people refuse to accept His payment for their sins. Those that refuse the free gift of grace will make their own payment for their sins.

But if his sacrifice is sufficient to pay for our sins then whats the need of purgatory? Is it catholic belie that Christ only paid for the eternal debt due for our sin, but the temporal debt needs to be paid by us? Can purgatory be avoided or do we all have to go there automatically since Christ could not sufficiently save us?