'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[JonNC]

From my reading of your quote from the Augsburg Confession and the theses from the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518; Luther pretty much was consistent in his belief that human will cannot effect a good work at all.

Not without the influence of the Holy Spirit, which is why he comments about the means of grace.
His comments are really against the Pelagianisn and semi-pelagianism he was taught at Erfurt.

In addition: Saint Paul wrote “ The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. “ which affirms that the human will, in accordance with common sense when you observe people in action; can will something good.

Remember that the men He was referring to
We’re living under His influence. Today His influence is by the Spirit and through the means of grace. Without these, the spirit is not willing, is incapable of being willing.

From the Ronan Confutation:

In the eighteenth article they confess the power of the Free Will - viz. that it has the power to work a civil righteousness, but that it has not, without the Holy Ghost, the virtue to work the righteousness of God. This confession is received and approved. For it thus becomes Catholics to pursue the middle way, so as not, with the Pelagians, to ascribe too much to the free will, nor, with the godless Manichaeans, to deny it all liberty; for both are not without fault.

 

[JonNC]

The Cistercian abbots you mentioned we’re in communion with Rome and thus possessed Apostolic Succession. Thus, their ordinations would be valid. Their teaching was in accord with the Apostolic teaching.

Bring in communion with the pope is relevant, from the Catholic viewpoint, on whether it is licit, not whether it is valid. PNCC orders are valid, even though they are not in communion.

Lutherans believe their teachings are consistent with apostolic teaching (what Rome thinks is irrelevant), and therefore valid.
Presbyter ordination is valid, as proven by the Cistercians and others before them.

Luther was an excommunicated priest teaching a heresy that violated Apostolic teaching who broke away, leaving communion with; from Rome. That leaves the lineage of Apostolic Succession. That alone invalidates any ordinations he had done.

It would make them illicit, AFAIK, from a Catholic viewpoint.

No Apostolic Succession, no valid Holy Orders, no valid ordinations and thus no valid Eucharist. The only valid Sacraments your clergy possess are Baptism and Matrimony.

Again, the Catholic opinion, which you are proper in believing.

 

[Michael16]

If a Lutheran were teaching things contradicting Luther’s teaching and broke away to form his own community separate from Luther’s group based on his teaching; I wonder if Luther would consider him a schismatic and a heretic and thus false.

All the while, Luther considered himself a faithful Catholic.

As for Lutherans believing that their teachings are consistent with Apostolic teaching: You claim that what Rome thinks is irrelevant. There are several problems with your statement.

One: What Rome thinks is overwhelmingly important; considering that the Church has been faithfully teaching the Apostolic Tradition since the earliest days of the Church. Luther threw out Tradition and substituted his own in its place.

Two: Luther’s break and his leaving the lineage of Apostolic Succession is based on an objective reality. Break from an organization, you leave that organization’s lineage. Just because you claim to remain in Apostolic Succession doesn’t make it true.

Three: No where in Sacred Scripture does it refer to itself as the sole infallible guide to faith and morals. In fact, the Scriptures we have in the earliest days of the Church were the OT, the Law; and the the Gospels and letters and other texts that would later become apocrypha until the Church codified in the 5th century. Sacred Tradition produced Sacred Scripture.

These two points alone refute Sola Scriptura.

When you look at the Scriptural basis used to defend Sola Fide; you find that really it’s exegetical hairsplitting to maintain a false distinction.

 

[Wannano]

Darn tagging feature.

I realize quoting Luther only applies to Lutherans. So, it’s unfair to declare that binding on all Protestants.

In the Reformed tradition, my understanding is that Calvin taught two things: A: Man is totally depraved and B: God predestines who’s saved and who’s damned. No choice for either party.

As for the other Protestant traditions; I’ll be honest. I don’t have a clue.

For me this admission is so revealing and important. Now that you realize the unfairness of lumping us all together I would expect that you will from now on resist the temptation to do so. Continuation will only serve to prove that you are looking to demolish any non-Catholic thought or practice rather than to truly understand another viewpoint.

It is my opinion that if you refuse to identify a certain communion and continue to paint with a large brush after admission that you have no clue what some within your target believe, that it indicates a hateful motive not coming from love.

 

[Michael16]

No, I don’t hate. I’m sorry if you feel that way.

 

[Wannano]

No, I don’t hate. I’m sorry if you feel that way.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying you hate. I am saying prove it by not lumping all non-Catholic traditions into the word “Protestant.” Be specific about who you are addressing.

 

[Michael16]

What I believe Luther did is he theologized his scrupulosity into a system that really just let him of the hook. He so thoroughly believed that he couldn’t change his conduct and effect a change of heart; so he pretty much interpreted Scripture along those lines.

Oh, and an illustration of how Lutherans aren’t in possession of Apostolic Succession.

If a group within Ford Motors breaks off from Ford and organizes itself along lines that differ from Henry Ford’s own ideas when he founded his company and yet claims that they’re the one true Ford Motors and remain faithful to Henry Ford’s principles, which is also trademark infringement; it would be laughed out of court.

That’s pretty much what Luther and his movement did.

 

[Michael16]

Fair enough.

 

[JonNC]

If a Lutheran were teaching things contradicting Luther’s teaching and broke away to form his own community separate from Luther’s group based on his teaching; I wonder if Luther would consider him a schismatic and a heretic and thus false.

Then Luther would had to consider all Lutherans as heretics. Luther is influential, clearly, but he was neither infallible, nor was he immune from the principle of sola scriptura, which mainithst sll teachers are normed by scripture.
The very first symbols in the Book of Concord are the three ecumenical creeds. That’s not by accident.

All the while, Luther considered himself a faithful Catholic.

Well, of course. He believed that the Evangelical Catholic tradition was a continuation of the apostolic faith.

As for Lutherans believing that their teachings are consistent with Apostolic teaching: You claim that what Rome thinks is irrelevant.

Perhaps irrelevant is too strong a word. Lutherans have expressed intense desire that our Catholic siblings recognize our orders as Lutherans to theirs. The desire for reciprocity is strong, but lacking it doesn’t change the certainty that Lutheran orders are valid.

One: What Rome thinks is overwhelmingly important; considering that the Church has been faithfully teaching the Apostolic Tradition since the earliest days of the Church. Luther threw out Tradition and substituted his own in its place.

One the first, I agree, though with “innovations” that we believe are contrary to the historic Church. On the second, no, Luther did not throw out Tradition.

Three: No where in Sacred Scripture does it refer to itself as the sole infallible guide to faith and morals.

I’ve already responded to #2. No where in scripture or the Tradition of the early Church is there s single mention of one bishop having universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church Militant, much less infallibility ex cathedra.

 

[Michael16]

Let’s look at several things in order to clarify how Luther departed from Scripture and thus deviated from the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

A: Faith alone. This is the rock upon which he himself said upon stands his entire doctrine. He declares: By faith alone, are we justified. Saint Paul says: “ Doers of the Law are justified “ and Saint James says: “ Faith without works is dead… By his works is a man justified and not by faith alone. “

This alone should prove that Luther sharply deviated from Scripture, Tradition, the Apostolic Faith.

B: The Upon this Rock Discourse. Jesus gave Saint Peter the Headship of the Church, the authority to exercise this headship, the authority to bind and loose and to forgive or retain sins and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.

Luther’s defiance of Papal authority, outright attacks against his authority and his power to forgive sins not only defied the Holy Father; he defied Jesus Himself Who gave the Pope this authority, power and headship. This alone invalidates his Sola Christus.

Saint Paul had written: “ Do all that I have taught you from tradition… “ Direct from the mouth of an Apostle. Luther defied Apostolic Tradition and Faith that the Church has always faithfully maintained. Now, I understand that Sola Scriptura recognizes authority and tradition as long as it does not deviate from Scripture. Thus, Luther invalidates himself by his own doctrine.

C: What innovations are you speaking of?
If you’re talking about indulgences, intercession and veneration of the saints that also includes that of Our Lady, prayers for the dead, Marian piety; et cetera, all of these things are found in the first three hundred years of the Church. Without controversy or dissension by the Early Church.

Significantly, these first three centuries were prior to the codification of Sacred Scripture. The Church relied upon Sacred Tradition and the Church produced Sacred Scripture from both her teaching authority, given her by Christ and preserved from error by the Holy Spirit; and Sacred Tradition.

Again; clearly refuting Sola Scriptura that you’ve evaded in answering.

As for your statement that neither Scripture nor Tradition, I have clearly demonstrated by Sacred Scripture that denial and defiance of Christ given authority possessed by the Holy Father.

I see you haven’t addressed my Ford Motors analogy. That’s a clear analogy for how false the claim that Lutheran orders are valid.

 

[Michael16]

Further addressing the invalidity of Lutheran orders, please demonstrate to me how you can defend this claim in light of Sacred Scripture and reason that a break away group in defiance of authority can somehow claim it remains in lineage with the group it broke away from.

That’s the essential issue:

A break away group teaching innovatory doctrines that deviate from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and in open defiance against divinely instituted authority can somehow:

A: Preserve the Faith they’ve altered.
B: Remain in Apostolic Succession when their teachings aren’t Apostolic. Especially when they broke away from the Church that authentically possesses Apostolic Succession.
C: When all of their innovatory doctrines are proven to be inconsistent with Sacred Scripture that they claim they faithfully adhere to.
D: How their Holy Orders are supposedly valid in the face of B.

 

[JonNC]

Let’s look at several things in order to clarify how Luther departed from Scripture and thus deviated from the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

A: Faith alone. This is the rock upon which he himself said upon stands his entire doctrine. He declares: By faith alone, are we justified. Saint Paul says: “ Doers of the Law are justified “ and Saint James says: “ Faith without works is dead… By his works is a man justified and not by faith alone. “

No conflict here. Continue.

B: The Upon this Rock Discourse. Jesus gave Saint Peter the Headship of the Church, the authority to exercise this headship, the authority to bind and loose and to forgive or retain sins and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.

There is no hint of the later innovation of supremacy, much less infallibility ex cathedra.

Luther’s defiance of Papal authority, outright attacks against his authority and his power to forgive sins not only defied the Holy Father; he defied Jesus Himself Who gave the Pope this authority, power and headship. This alone invalidates his Sola Christus.

It is curious that this authority is not present at Nicaea, at least according to canon 6, and was disputed by all but one of the patriarchs to the point of a Great Schism at the beginning of the second millennium.

 

[Michael16]

I don’t understand how you say there’s no conflict concerning my refutation of Sola Fide. In addition, you further didn’t address the paradox of your statement on Apostolic Succession.

As for your statement on the “ innovation “ of Papal supremacy; I believe you’ve evaded the Upon this Rock Discourse and the supremacy of Saint Peter in the early Church in Jerusalem.

 

[Michael16]

I pretty much see that you’ve evaded much of what I said in the previous posts.

On the matter of Sola Fide, the claim that faith alone justifies is clearly refuted and yet you somehow maintain there’s no conflict?

 

[mcq72]

God gives His gifts to those who merit them in His eyes

Certainly not in justification, even as your catechism states, on " initial justification.

“no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion”

 

[De_Maria]

You’re the first Catholic I’ve seen laugh at the idea of calling a priest, Father.

By the time Calvin called him, father, he was no longer a priest. Calvin called him father because he admired him and had become his follower.

I have to say @De_Maria - you do have an interesting take on scripture. A free gift that isn’t absolutely free. That sounds a lot like how the definition of “children” ended up in my life.

That is correct. God’s free will gift of salvation is not absolutely free. It is conditional. Only those who obey God and keep the Commandments, receive it.

De_Maria:

2008 The merit of man before God…

Sorry but this is all over the place…it is free but then merited and then merit by assistance…

The part that you’re finding hard is that God is the Boss. He sets the rules. So, if He says, “you did good”, then, He is pleased. You don’t want God to be pleased with what men do in obedience to Him. But you are not the boss.

We should have stopped verbiage when we had it right, while holding His cup, uttering, “Lord I am not worthy.”

Again, God is the Boss. If someone says, “Lord, I am not worthy.” God might say, “You’re right. And you’re faking it now.” Because God can read hearts.

Or God might say, “Come closer my good and faithful friend. Because you have done all that I ask and more.”

You keep judging man from your perspective. But we have only one Judge.

 

[De_Maria]

Michael16:

If a Lutheran were teaching things contradicting Luther’s teaching and broke away to form his own community separate from Luther’s group based on his teaching; I wonder if Luther would consider him a schismatic and a heretic and thus false.

Then Luther would had to consider all Lutherans as heretics. Luther is influential, clearly, but he was neither infallible, nor was he immune from the principle of sola scriptura, which mainithst sll teachers are normed by scripture.
The very first symbols in the Book of Concord are the three ecumenical creeds. That’s not by accident.

That’s what I have repeatedly told you and you denied it. But now you’ve said it. This is the same principle that all Protestants hold to, not just Lutherans. If it doesn’t agree with their understanding of Scripture, they reject it. Darn the traditions and the councils and everything else.

 

[Michael16]

I think we have to remember that we do not merit the initial free gift of grace that God gives us. However: After accepting the initial gift, we do merit additional graces in our good works as we cooperate with God.

 

[JonNC]

That’s what I have repeatedly told you and you denied it. But now you’ve said it. This is the same principle that all Protestants hold to, not just Lutherans. If it doesn’t agree with their understanding of Scripture, they reject it. Darn the traditions and the councils and everything else.

Where did I say someone’s understanding of scripture?
That said, the Catholic approach is the same, someone’s understanding of scripture. Someone’s understanding of Tradition.

 

[TULIPed]

Jon - I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps based on the quote below, you and @De_Maria are better off debating PGA Golf (Go Rory!), college football (the SEC is NOT as good as everybody says), politics (no comment) - really pretty much anything but theology:

That is correct. God’s free will gift of salvation is not absolutely free. It is conditional. Only those who obey God and keep the Commandments, receive it.

#callitaday