Sola Fide – what does fide mean anyway?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quaestor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Quaestor

Guest
Fide does not mean faith, it is as best a very bad approximation of the word. Latin does not have a word which is a good approximation for the English word faith. Accredo might be better word which might translate better to mean faith. Faith as we know it today, or the English understanding of the word faith, at least among Protestants would be treated as superstition by the Romans. The Roman People did not understand the word fide as we take it to mean faith. Fide actually means something close to doing your duty by the gods, loyalty to the gens and therefore the god or fidelity.
 
Quaestor said:
Fide does not mean faith, it is as best a very bad approximation of the word. Latin does not have a word which is a good approximation for the English word faith. Accredo might be better word which might translate better to mean faith. Faith as we know it today, or the English understanding of the word faith, at least among Protestants would be treated as superstition by the Romans. The Roman People did not understand the word fide as we take it to mean faith. Fide actually means something close to doing your duty by the gods, loyalty to the gens and therefore the god or fidelity.
Click to expand...
Latin fides, fifth declension (e stems) noun. Trust, faith, belief
Case
Singular​
Plural​
Nominative
Fides​
Fides​
Genitive
Fidei​
Fiderum​
Dative
Fidei​
Fidebus​
Accusative
Fidem​
Fides​
Ablative
Fide​
Fidebus​
Vocative
Fides​
Fides​
 
Don’t bother giving me a lesson in Latin, I am well aware of Latin grammar and fully capable of reading source documents.
FIDE DOES NOT MEAN FAITH! Fide meaning faith is a modern rendition of the word. There is really no word in Latin that translates to faith as we define faith today. It is duty, Loyalty or Fidelity not Faith in the english sense of the work. Knowing you declensions does not mean you know what it means. You will need first to understand roman culture and language before you can understand how the word is used in the Church and by the Roman people. Accrdeo (V) or fiducia (N), is a far better rendition than fide. However, that said there is no word which translates to mean “faith” as faith is used today. Romans would have considered those who understood fide to be faith would have considered this a superstition. Romans were a very “reasonable” people. So the proposition that faith without reason is superstition (if the word faith as understood today) every Roman would agree.

I am not debating this point, I am edifying those who might not know. You can disagree, but you would be wrong.
 
Last edited:
And what did the reformers, who established the phrase, mean by “fide”?

M. Luther’s defintion is not Hebrew’s (St. Paul) definition.
 
That is the problem, what did the reformers mean when they used the word fide. Were they equivocating in their use of it? Or did they mean fide as fide was to the Roman people? If that is the case, they might have been too far from the truth (of course there is still no sola fide in the bible).

We tend to think that the ancient people were uncivilized and were idiots. That is so far from the truth - they were FAR and away greater thinkers than we are today. Take away our technological advances and the Greeks and Romans would beat us with pure intellect.

When you throw out tradition which provides an anchor, even language gets distorted. Language itself is so intrinsically bound in tradition that when one denies tradition word meaning loses objectivity and then takes on a subjective meaning with no transcultural or a transindividual anchor to give it an objective meaning. Protestantism is what has lead to deconstruction of language.Look at what Luther himself did… and it is so apt. He removed the deuterocanonical books which if they appear in a Protestant bible (they never do) appear in the apocrypha which is an equivocation of the term - as there was already an apocrypha and none of the deuterocanonical books belonged to it!

This is one of the reasons that when Karl von Habsburg addressed the European parliament he asked that the laws for the EU be written officially in Romance languages rather than from English or German from which then English or German translations could be made.
 
I think most genuine non Catholic Christians, whn hard pressed, will agree that saving faith requires more than mere belief.

Does that mean the term “faith” means more than belief? It depends how it is applied. When applying faith to one’s actions, then its more than belief. If it is applied to what someone sees as an invisible reality, then that isnt much different than belief.

But faith truly is a supernatural gift. We are enlightened to see spiritual things through the it of faith. We know and understand these things by a perception called faith. It is crucial to doing what pleases God, since it is a means to even accept God and what might be from Him.

Are we saved when we see by faith? I believe so, im a way. But we are inevitably challenged when we accept this faith. And what we do when challenged cannot be faith alone. It is a response of action, or a rejection of faith.

Also, we dont know Jesus through faith alone, since everyone needs to hear the message from the ones who are faithful. Faith is not just a personal revelation of the Gospel.
 
Fide has never meant belief itself or intellectual assent to some idea. Faith on the other hand is purely that. We are not “saved” by faith… no even an iota. We can be on the other hand we can be “saved” by fide > Faith in action > by doing our duty through loyalty and fidelity. I hate the word “saved” I rather used redeeming and sanctifying instead
 
I love the word saved! Im glad our Lord gives us this word and promise. Though, i must live by faith in order to receive our Lord’s promise.

Anyways, can you provide some evidence of the meaning of “fide”?
 
Fide means faith.
It is not your Latin that is lacking, but your English! Faith should mean something more akin to loyalty, to fidelity, not blind belief.
Think of the word faithful.
 
Understand first what the Roman pagan religion was about. The Romans did not practice a religion what they practiced was a cultus (old meaning, a culture). It is very important to understand that the Romans did not worship their gods, they only honored them - and did so as a part of the cultic paganism which was practiced. Every home had a shrine to one of their minor gods (these gods were more Italic Etruscan and Latin), The ordinary persons did not even generally pay honor to any of the major gods - their duty was to the minor household deity and they would remember their gens and those in their gens and speak in honor of them - (hence the reason why many Romans adopted children). By being dutiful, the ordinary Roman citizen was honoring his own gens. The cult of the Roman people was not based on faith, but performing their duty. This is what fide meant to the Romans. So you have ordinary citizens…

let’s look at the patricians. The Patricians had duties to the state, and this meant that from time to time they would have fulfil their duty toward the cult of the Emperor. Now this is does not mean Romans worshipped the Emperor. Romans did not worship ANYTHING. Part of this duty was pinching incense now and then to whichever festival or providing a sacrifice at the temples. This was again duty. The patricians would provide a sacrifice to honor Ceres so that the other citizens would gain some advantage in their fields. Again this was a duty performed, But to the Roman patrician this is their fide which was ritualistic but not a religion as we in the west might come to think of it. Even Hinduism which is pantheistic does not appear to have the same quality as Roman paganism.

The only people who seem to have a religion per se appears to be the Roman soldiers who came from every nook and cranny in the empire. The military was religious because fighting and winning and not getting killed in the process was a good thing. So they seem to practice something more than just cultic duty.

continued… (too long)
 
It is in this context that we need to begin to understand what actually precipitated the Diocletian persecution. Unlike the other persecutions which were localized to an area, the Diocletian persecution was empire wide because the underlying reason for this was a military operation and since the Oracle could not provide insight which was blamed on the Christians, the Christians were blamed by the military and this was the most severe persecution.

Other persecution was about Christians not fulfilling their duty within the cult of the Emperor. This is the reason why the Romans could not understand why christians would not just pinch some incense get it over with, because they did not have to believe in anything but just had to perform a duty toward the cultus. The culture of Rome which was merely a civic duty nothing more. This is what fide meant to a Roman - doing your duty, loyalty and fidelity.

Once you know who Romans were and their society and culture you being to understand what the word means. Words belong to a tradition and a culture, take it out of that context and the word may not mean the same thing. Fide did not mean faith, because the Romans did not have “faith” - they looks at faith (as in a religious faith) as superstition. When you know this fact, suddenly the Justin Martyr’s apologies begin to make so much more sense. Also, now, with this insight, go and read Pliny and see how much more sense he makes. You’d be surprised how this changes your understanding of source writings.
 
The seed in the reformation living room has sprouted and grown into a full-sized elephant - and a multiple personality elephant at that. There are not set definitions for anything that are universally agreed on. Some reformation!
 
You are absolutely correct. The philosophical deconstruction attacks language itself and the exegesis of texts. No longer do texts have a universal meaning but texts are understood subjectively. This is where the critical method has taken us, and this is all due to the reformation.

Once you throw out tradition which anchors the conceptual understanding of a word, the word loses its meaning. Without tradition as an anchor the bible has not meaning and it is up to the reader to determine as to what it means for himself… which is totally subjective to the person.

This is the reason I can look at the commentary in my Tanakh and it the same commentary in the Haydock bible. Matches perfectly. The apostles brought their Jewish tradition as a part of the deposit of the faith and that is why the commentaries match perfectly. Rip out tradition and the Old testament has no meaning, meaning is what you give to it subjectively.

The Orthodox and the Orientals and the Catholics understand the bible in exactly the same manner. The reason for this is the Tradition held in common.

The source of Scripture is Tradition (the Torah Shebalpeh). EVERYTHING IS TRADITION. What do you think Moses was doing for 40 day? He was being taught the Torah ShebalPeh. He wrote a part of it down which is the Written Torah the Law. Was the rest of the stuff taught by Gd not important? Of course it was. But that is in the heart and culture of the people. This is the same with the bible. Christ taught ORALLY … the oral tradition and the apostles wrote a part of it down. Was the rest of it not important? This is why Tradition is at least for me (I am a ethnically a Jew) is more important that the Bible itself. Before you all yell heresy understand why. 90% of the Jewish scholars focus their studies on the Torah Shebalpeh not on the Written Law (Torah) because when there is an apparent conflict it is the Torah ShebalPeh which gives correct meaning to the Torah. By knowing the tradition and living in the culture you come into the correct mindset to understand the Torah. So the bible itself is written to people within the culture not for those outside it. This is why Jews never teach the torah to converts … you have to spend time studying the faith first before you can become a Jew.
 
From Judaism online

These persons insist that there is no such thing as the Oral Tradition. But, since the scripture did not tell them clearly what they had to believe, they simply ended up inventing their own tradition. They chose man’s tradition over that of the Lord. A poor choice indeed.

He might have been speaking about protestants
 
Kei said:
Fide means faith.
It is not your Latin that is lacking, but your English! Faith should mean something more akin to loyalty, to fidelity, not blind belief.
Think of the word faithful.
Click to expand...
I will not argue your point because it is correct in the end. So in the end what does the word faith mean to you, that is the real question. if you mean duty loyalty fidelity FAITH=FIDE.
 
Well, more like what it should mean. Perhaps nowadays people have misused their terms to their own chagrin so much that it holds a different meaning. But words are interconnected. You can see what fide means by looking at the word fidelity. You can see what faith means by looking at the word faithful or faithfully.
As you said, the deconstruction of language…
 
"Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith doesn’t ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked, it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn’t do such works is without faith; he gropes and searches about him for faith and good works but doesn’t know what faith or good works are. Even so, he chatters on with a great many words about faith and good works.

Faith is a living, unshakeable confidence in God’s grace; it is so certain, that someone would die a thousand times for it. This kind of trust in and knowledge of God’s grace makes a person joyful, confident, and happy with regard to God and all creatures. This is what the Holy Spirit does by faith. Through faith, a person will do good to everyone without coercion, willingly and happily; he will serve everyone, suffer everything for the love and praise of God, who has shown him such grace. It is as impossible to separate works from faith as burning and shining from fire. Therefore be on guard against your own false ideas and against the chatterers who think they are clever enough to make judgements about faith and good works but who are in reality the biggest fools. Ask God to work faith in you; otherwise you will remain eternally without faith, no matter what you try to do or fabricate."

Martin Luther
 
Notice Martin’s first line begins “faith is a work”.

I think we can actually agree that faith, according to his definition, does save.
 
Last edited:
Now here is Scripture’s definition of faith:

Hebrew’s 11
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval. By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.
 
Thank you! This passage should have been the first response to this thread - it could have saved us some time. Of course there was no existing word for something that did not exist in the natural world - it is a word for a supernatural reality. Existing words had to take on new meanings to describe or even to discuss the revelations of Jesus Christ, truths illuminated by and in the light within given by the Holy Spirit.

Faith is understood in terms of supernatural hope - hope directed to eternity in divine beatitude. Faith is understood in terms of “things not seen” with natural eyes, not seen or understood in natural light, but only seen in the light of “faith,” a supernatural seeing, a supernatural understanding.

Thus, as Jesus explained to Nicodemus,
Jn 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Jn 3:4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
Jn 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Jn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top