'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

A visible protestant church that exists, yes. Not the True Church which Jesus established, but one which is descended of Luther’s rebellion.

Yes we are Korahs to you…

Yep.

the flip side is the stiff necked leaders/ magisteriums who persecuted true prophets of God…

On the contrary, the leadership of the Catholic Church represents Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

two antecedents from OT carried out into new, also from which to humbly examine oneself…that is that the same God ordained leadership (Jews/Israel now Church) at one time rightly eschewed rebels/heretics could then later persecute/kill true prophets/reformers from God.

Uh, what? Anyway, it continues to sound like an objection to the Church. So, I’ll just inform you that God put the Catholic Church in charge. This is easily proved by Scripture.

First, Jesus Christ appointed a Pastor as head of the entire Church:

John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

I see only a few Churches with such a Pastor. Further, Jesus Christ said that the Pastor over His Church would be infallible:

Matthew 16:17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The list of Churches accept this teaching gets smaller. Certainly, all Protestant denominations can now be eliminated.

 

[De_Maria]

Jesus Christ not only said that the Pastor was infallible but Scripture describes the Church as infallible:

Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

The list remains the same, but now I can certainly eliminate all Protestant denominations.

Back to Matt 16:18, Scripture says that Jesus Christ established one Church. History shows that all the Churches sprang from the Church which is frequently described as the Mother Church. The Catholic Church.

So, even using just a few verses we can eliminate the Protestants. None of their denominations even come close to being in Scripture. But we can continue to find Catholic indicators throughout the Bible:

The Church which is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
The Church which is united (Eph 4:5).
The doctrines of the Catholic Church which are distinctive from other churches:
Purgatory (1 Cor 3:15).
Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-27).
Communion of Saints (Rom 12:12-20).
The Mass and the necessity to attend (Heb 10:25-31).
The Sacrament of Confession (Heb 13:17).
The Sacrament of Holy Orders (1 Tim 4:14).
The Sacrament of Baptism (Titus 3:5).
Justification and salvation by faith and works (Rom 2:1-13).

Who is the true rebel is to humbly be discerned, and as one posted earlier, God will separate wheat from chaff in that great day.

Yes, indeed.

 

[mcq72]

On the contrary, the leadership of the Catholic Church represents Christ.

Yes, as it should, as we all should, but do they, do we, always, in all things, for the last two thousand years? Paul here is not just talking about proper teaching on faith and morals, but in all deeds towards the saints in care.

Uh, what? Anyway,

If you can only see God’s representative authority in terms of legitimacy (of course then only being righteous in judging Korah’s) in OT for sure you will also never see any failings in the NT also…as if Jesus never spoke critically of His OT ambassadors, or even of His 7 young churches.

The list of Churches accept this teaching gets smaller. Certainly, all Protestant denominations can now be eliminated.

Actually most churches accept that Peter was the leader of the twelve, even first amongst equals, even having keys etc…they have no problem with said proof texts…some do have a problem with then justifying an unconditional extension of such power only to bishop of Rome, as is the Roman Catholic tradition.

Yes, for 1800 years the CC from Rome has been justifying itself as the only true ambassadors of the church over all others.

“Eliminating” is a poor way of wording it, even offensive given our history.

 

[mcq72]

Jesus Christ not only said that the Pastor was infallible but Scripture describes the Church as infallible:

Nonsense but the reformation to many is proof that He guides and corrects to His glory.

History shows that all the Churches sprang from the Church which is frequently described as the Mother Church. The Catholic Churc

Yes we have a continuing history and who would deny that the Orthodox and Protestants are part of the continuation?

So, even using just a few verses we can eliminate the Protestants. None of their denominations even come close to being in Scripture. But we can continue to find Catholic indicators throughout the Bible:

Well, indeed you do well in lifting your church up, maybe even Christ and maybe even in love, at times. Yet may all things done in His name be pressed to the fire and who would deny any fire in the reformation?

 

[JonNC]

Yes we have a continuing history and who would deny that the Orthodox and Protestants are part of the continuation?

The Orthodox would say that the Catholic Church sprang from the original Church through schism.
As far as who would deny what you’ve said, triumphalist Catholics, of course, but then there are triumphalists of other communions that would deny that Catholics are part of that continuation. I find triumphalism, regardless of it’s source, to be borne of arrogance, personally.

 

[De_Maria]

“Eliminating” is a poor way of wording it, even offensive given our history.

Please don’t start with the political correctness. Eliminating is a perfectly fine word which I’ve used countless times and in the span of at least ten years and you’re the first to make that complaint.

Yes, as it should, as we all should, but do they, do we, always, in all things, for the last two thousand years?

Really? We don’t live in a perfect world. That awaits those who are deemed worthy, in the after life.

Paul here is not just talking about proper teaching on faith and morals, but in all deeds towards the saints in care.

And you’re point? That everyone should perfectly follow what he said. First you have to reign in the non-Catholics who want to interpret his words in their private fashion.

If you can only see God’s representative authority in terms of legitimacy (of course then only being righteous in judging Korah’s) in OT for sure you will also never see any failings in the NT also…as if Jesus never spoke critically of His OT ambassadors, or even of His 7 young churches.

You’re over reaching. Failings in the OT and in the NT are between God and man. I’m just here correcting false doctrine of the non-Catholics who want to impose their errors on Catholics.

Actually most churches accept that Peter was the leader of the twelve, even first amongst equals, even having keys etc…they have no problem with said proof texts…some do have a problem with then justifying an unconditional extension of such power only to bishop of Rome, as is the Roman Catholic tradition.

Neh. The Protestants I speak to deny that St. Peter was appointed the leader of the Apostles. They grant that honor to St. James and later, to St. Paul, in the Church of the Gentiles.

Yes, for 1800 years the CC from Rome has been justifying itself as the only true ambassadors of the church over all others.

God appointed the Catholic Church as His representative. Whether you like it or not.

Nonsense but the reformation to many is proof that He guides and corrects to His glory.

That’s nonsense. The Protestant rebellion has failed and splintered from the beginning. The Protestant rebellion resulted in confusion. God is not the author of confusion.

Yes we have a continuing history and who would deny that the Orthodox
…
The Orthodox are the other lung with which the body of Christ breathes.

…who would deny that… Protestants are part of the continuation?

Anyone with eyes to see. Jesus did not pray for a splintered Church.

Well, indeed you do well…

Look, I’m here to talk Scripture and Catholic doctrine. If you want to discuss your opinions, perhaps open a thread on the opinions you want to discuss. Do you have any particular Protestant doctrine that you want to defend?

 

[Hodos]

So-So answer to the wrong question my friend. First of all, this passage doesn’t speak of love devoid of faith or hope. Second, it doesn’t address what Sola Fide is even talking about. Sola Fide is addressing the means by which we are justified before God, not the means by which we operate in the temporal realm with our brothers in Christ. The passage in 1 Corinthians is specifically speaking about the relationship of Christian brothers and sisters in maintaining mutually beneficial good order in the Church. It isn’t speaking to how we are justified before God. If you would like to address a passage that actually addresses that subject you would look to Romans 3 for example. I guess my point is that you may not fully understand the doctrine of Sola Fide and it is leading you to make wildly unrelated statements. It is kind of like someone asking if the correct practice is infant baptism and adult baptism and you are raising your hand and screaming, “The Trinity!”

 

[De_Maria]

The Orthodox would say that the Catholic Church sprang from the original Church through schism.
As far as who would deny what you’ve said, triumphalist Catholics, of course, but then there are triumphalists of other communions that would deny that Catholics are part of that continuation. I find triumphalism, regardless of it’s source, to be borne of arrogance, personally.

Except Jon, that we can’t find your church in Scripture. Whereas, the Catholic Church is clearly the one that Jesus Christ established. You can call it “triumphalist” if you want, but it is a fact.

 

[dopeyMS]

Or we could look at James and see how we are justified before God:

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:20-26

The typical protestant proof texts that rely solely on Paul and reject the rest of scripture. Martin Luther tried to have James removed from the bible because his heresy was so clearly unmasked by him. We are justified by our works or what we ‘do’ and in the final judgment we will be judged by our works or what we ‘did’.

 

[Hodos]

Or we could look at James and see how we are justified before God:

Or we could look at both in their context, as in when James says, “Show me your faith… and I will show my faith by my works.” His entire point is demonstrating his faith to his neighbor. So just as Rahab had faith, she demonstrated that faith to the Israelites by rescuing the spies and placing the scarlet cord in her window. Just as Abraham was justified by faith all the way back in Chapter 15 and that his faith was credited to him as righteousness, he demonstrates that faith in offering Isaac. This is in harmony with Paul’s statement that we are justified by faith apart from works when he tells us that it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law. Also, I would relook at the passage you are referring to in Revelations (I am assuming you are going there in talking about the final judgment), where there are two books opened, one that judges our works (not for good), and the other where our names are written in the book of life unto salvation.

 

[dopeyMS]

You seem to be only looking at one and I have no problem with Paul as he presented a very balanced gospel of faith which ‘works’ by love which again rebukes Luther.

 

[dopeyMS]

Or we could look at both in their context, as in when James says, “Show me your faith… and I will show my faith by my works.” His entire point is demonstrating his faith to his neighbor. So just as Rahab had faith, she demonstrated that faith to the Israelites by rescuing the spies and placing the scarlet cord in her window. Just as Abraham was justified by faith all the way back in Chapter 15 and that his faith was credited to him as righteousness, he demonstrates that faith in offering Isaac. This is in harmony with Paul’s statement that we are justified by faith apart from works when he tells us that it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law. Also, I would relook at the passage you are referring to in Revelations (I am assuming you are going there in talking about the final judgment), where there are two books opened, one that judges our works (not for good), and the other where our names are written in the book of life unto salvation.

So we are not justified by faith alone then and ‘sola fide’ is a hoax, sham, fake and sucker punch to the spiritual heart of protestantism.

 

[Hodos]

You seem to be only looking at one and I have no problem with Paul as he presented a very balanced gospel of faith which ‘works’ by love which again rebukes Luther.

Actually it doesn’t rebuke Luther. Luther is very much concerned with works. This is a common trope here but Luther wrote entire treatises on this very topic. However, feel free to peruse our confessions:

Augsburg Confession, Article IV: Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merit, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by his death, has made satisfaction for sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in his sight. Rom 3 and 4.

Augsburg Confession, Article VI: Also they teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God’s will, but that we should not rely on those works to merit justification before God. For remission of sins and justification is apprehended by faith, as also the voice of Christ attests: When ye shall have done all these things, say: We are unprofitable servants. Luke 17:10. The same is also taught by the Fathers. For Ambrose says: It is ordained of God that he who believes in Christ is saved, freely receiving remission of sins, without works, by faith alone."

 

[dopeyMS]

Luther’s most famous saying is the church stands or falls on the doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone’. Are you going to deny that to?

 

[Hodos]

No, I affirm it in its context, as you can see from my quote from our confessions.

 

[dopeyMS]

Well I reject it. Just like I reject Luther. And all other forms of protestant heresy. That’s why I converted to Orthodoxy 20 years ago and my wife is Orthodox too and so are my cats. I also have many icons especially of the blessed and glorified Lady.

 

[Hodos]

Fair enough. I have to admit, I laughed at the Orthodox cats (assuming you were joking about that).

 

[JonNC]

Except Jon, that we can’t find your church in Scripture. Whereas, the Catholic Church is clearly the one that Jesus Christ established. You can call it “triumphalist” if you want, but it is a fact.

Where on finds word and sacrament, there is the Church.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Except Jon, that we can’t find your church in Scripture. Whereas, the Catholic Church is clearly the one that Jesus Christ established. You can call it “triumphalist” if you want, but it is a fact.

Where on finds word and sacrament, there is the Church.

Lutherans don’t have valid Sacraments.

 

[Hodos]

Lutherans don’t have valid Sacraments.

I have never understood this statement, which is self-contradicting when you examine when and where it was contrived.